DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/14/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 11, 13, 17 and
19 have been amended, no claim have been canceled and added. Thus claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/15/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
Applicant submits that the amended claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least two reasons based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("2019 Guidance"). See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106(1) (9th Ed., Rev. 10.2019, Last Revised Jun. 2020).
First, according to the 2019 Guidance, for a claim to be an abstract idea, the claim must recite limitations that incorporate mathematical concepts or constitute mental processes or certain methods or techniques of organizing human activity. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). Applicant submits that the amended claims do not recite any limitations falling within any of these enumerated groupings.
In that regard, the amended claims do not recite any mathematical relations, formulas, or calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(1). The amended claims also do not recite any methods or techniques for organizing human activities, such as fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or personal behaviors or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In addition, the amended claims are not directed towards mental processes because the claimed steps are not practically performed in the human mind or using pen/paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, the amended claims recite the specific step of receiving, during a real-time collaboration session including a plurality of participants operating a plurality of workstations that are connected via a network and distributed across a plurality of different locations, a first input associated with a first selectable component. This step quite clearly requires the use of a computing device and does not constitute a step 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.
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 10/14/2025 [pages 14-15]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner disagrees.
The claims do recite a mental process.
In MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
Regarding claim limitations “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 a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component; 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,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Therefore, the claim limitation is a “mental process”, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2A, prong one is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
Second, the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In that regard, the claimed approach is directed towards the practical application of enabling real-time collaboration of participants to collectively generate and modify a shared design model comprising a set of pre-defined selectable components. Through this practical application, the claimed approach imparts the technological improvement of allowing different participants having different design goals - but lacking design expertise - to each contribute to the shared design model through inputs relating to the set of pre- defined selectable components of the shared design model. 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. See Application, paragraphs [0008], [0029] - [0030], and [0137] - [0139].
In addition, these limitations place substantive and meaningful limits on the scope of the claims and similarly place substantive and meaningful limits on any purported abstract idea, thereby integrating any purported abstract idea into the practical application of generated computer-aided designs. See MPEP at § 2106.04(d) ("[a] claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception"),see also MPEP at § 2106.04(d)(1), citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that recite specifically limited steps or elements that effect a technological improvement or useful result are not abstract).
As the foregoing illustrates, any purported abstract idea recited in the amended claims is integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible.
Because the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, and because the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application, the present claims are subject-matter eligible under Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance.
(see Response filed 10/14/2025 [pages 15-16]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner disagrees that “these limitations place substantive and meaningful limits on the scope of the claims and similarly place substantive and meaningful limits on any purported abstract idea, thereby integrating any purported abstract idea into the practical application of generated computer-aided designs.” 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 fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." (emphasis added)
Further, In order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” In other words, the specification should describe the claimed improvement over the background invention or existing technology, and the claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements (emphasis added) by specifying how the claimed improvement perform the additional element different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field. Further, according MPEP 2106.05(a), “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”
However, the additional limitations are merely adding a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering activity, and merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The additional limitation does not specify how the claimed improvement performs the additional element in a manner that is different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field or any known technical field. For example, how the claimed receiving first input, modifying and generating data during a real-time collaboration session associated with first selectable component are technologically distinct from generic or conventional computer functions such as data gathering and processing steps. Likewise, the claim does not provide any details indicating that the receiving, modifying and generating functions using any non-conventional techniques or specifies any technical improvement over known data gathering and processing methods. In contrast, the claimed limitation broadly disclose the receiving, generating and modifying steps at a high level generality would not consider as an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Further, In McRO, the claims recited specific rules for animation automation that improved the technological process of automated lip synchronization by replacing subjective human judgement with particularized objective rules, thereby improving computer animation technology. In contrast, the claimed limitations merely recite generic computer functions without reciting any specific technical rules, algorithms, or non-conventional processing techniques that improve computer functionality or any other technical field. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to no more than applying computer components to perform well-understood, routine and conventional functions in the field of modeling, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B, and independent claims 1, 11 and 17, and dependent claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 test. Applicant submits that the amended claims are similarly directed towards a technological solution to a technological problem.
In that regard, the present Application makes clear that a technical problem that existed in the prior art prior to the development of the claimed approach was that a conventional design application required an experienced designer with a deep understanding of the design framework to generate and modify a problem specification (design model) for a design project. In addition, a conventional design application is not configured to enable a multi-user design process and 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 contribute to the shared design model through inputs relating to a set of pre-defined selectable components of the shared design model. In this manner, the contributions of all stakeholders/participants in the collaboration of the shared design model can be used to generate and 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.
Accordingly, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible under the legal rule set forth in Finian, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that recite specifically limited steps or elements that effect a technological improvement or useful result are not abstract), under the legal rule set forth in Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed towards a technological improvement are not abstract), and the legal rule set forth in Weisner v. Google LLC, No. 2021-2228 (Fed. Cir. 2022) and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed towards a technical solution to a technical problem necessarily recite more than an abstract idea).
(see Response filed 10/14/2025 [pages 16-17]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner disagrees that “the amended claims are similarly directed towards a technological solution to a technological problem.” Although this might be an improvement in the structuring design model effort, this remains an improvement in the abstract idea itself (mental process). The technical field is not specifically improved in hardware or software of conventional computer or system because neither the claim nor the specification shows how the structured design model improve computer generic function, such as inputting, modifying and generating design data or information.
Further, as explained in the MPEP 2106.05(b)(I), “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” Further, as explained in the MPEP 2106.05(b)(II), “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We are not persuaded by the appellant's argument that the claimed method is tied to a particular machine because it ‘would not be necessary or possible without the Internet.’ . . . Regardless of whether "the Internet" can be viewed as a machine, it is clear that the Internet cannot perform the fraud detection steps of the claimed method"). For example, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly").”
The applicant cites several federal 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, memory configuration, or computer architecture that improves how the computer itself operates, but instead merely use computing components to receiving, generating, and modifying design data or information, which are generic computer functions.
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims are directed to abstract ideas (mental process and mathematical concepts), are not integrated judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 17, in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks
Made in an Amendment,” pages 17-19, 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 Pankaj (US20190332246A1) teaches the newly amended limitations. Therefore, De Biswas (US 20130144566A1) in view of “From Personas to Design: Creating a Collaborative Multi-disciplinary Design Environment” by Ndiwalana, published in January 2005 and Pankaj (US20190332246A1) teach claims 1, 11 and 17. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 11 and 17, and the claims dependent thereon, 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 selectable component from a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model, wherein the first selectable component is associated with a first persona in a plurality of different personas, and only a participant associated with the first persona among the plurality of different personas is permitted to add or remove the first selectable component to or from the shared design mode;
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; 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. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
adding the shared design model to a shared design space;
generating, based on the shared design model and the first input, a first set of candidate design solutions that includes additional selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable 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 shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items including (i) a first block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a first type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics, and the set of metrics is computed based on one or more sets of characteristics included in the arrangement of the set of block items.
4. (Previously Presented) 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.
11. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate a design model shared between multiple participants by performing the steps of:
receiving, 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 selectable component from a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model, wherein the first selectable component is associated with a first persona in a plurality of different personas, and only a participant associated with the first persona among the plurality of different personas is permitted to add or remove the first selectable component to or from 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; 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.
12. (Previously Presented) The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
adding the shared design model to a shared design space;
generating, based on the shared design model and the first input, a first set of candidate design solutions that includes additional selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable 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.
13. (Original) The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 12, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the step of 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 shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items including (i) a first block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a first type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics, and the set of metrics is computed based on one or more sets of characteristics included in the arrangement of the set of block items.
14. (Currently Amended) The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein:
the set of metrics is weighted based on the first persona.
18. A system for generating a design model shared between multiple participants, the system comprising:
a memory storing a generative design application; and
a processor coupled to the memory that executes the generative design application by performing the steps of:
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 selectable component from a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model, wherein the first selectable component is associated with a first persona in a plurality of different personas, and only a participant associated with the first persona among the plurality of different personas is permitted to add or remove the first selectable component to or from 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; 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.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the processor further executes the generative design application to perform the steps of:
adding the shared design model to a shared design space;
generating, based on the shared design model and the first input, a first set of candidate design solutions that includes additional selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable 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.
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 a first selectable component, wherein: the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model, the first selectable component is of a first component type, wherein the first selectable component is associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas; 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 a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component; 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.
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 an arrangement of a set of block items including (i) a first block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a first type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second block item comprising a pre- defined selectable component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics, 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.
11. 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:
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 selectable component, wherein: the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model, the first selectable component is of a first component type, wherein the first selectable component is associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas; 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 a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component; 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.
16. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the step of 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 an arrangement of a set of block items including (i) a first block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a first type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics, 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 a first set of design goals associated with the first persona applies a first set of weights to the set of metrics.
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:
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 selectable component, wherein: the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model, the first selectable component is of a first component type, wherein the first selectable component is associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas; 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 a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component; 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.
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 De
Biswas US20130144566A1 and Pankaj US20190332246A1 and “From Personas to Design: Creating a Collaborative Multi-disciplinary Design Environment” by Ndiwalana, published in January 2005.
Claims 1 and 2 of Benjamin ‘340 teaches all of the limitations of the instant claim 1, except “a multi-objective model; the first selectable component is of a first component type, wherein the first selectable component is associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas; 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; the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component; 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.” Benjamin ‘340 in view of De Biswas and Pankaj and Ndiwalana teach a multi-objective model; the first selectable component is of a first component type; 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; the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component; 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 (see De Biswas, FIG.4, FIG.11, [142], [0153]). each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals (see Ndiwalana, Page.3, under Related Work, Page.5., under 3. PERSONAS). first selectable component is associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas (see Pankaj, [0031]) 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 ‘813 to incorporate the teachings of De Biswas and Pankaj and Ndiwalana in order to achieve suitable and improved design model based on perspectives, goals and knowledge from each of different personas during a real-time collaboration session.
Claims 3 and 4 of Benjamin ‘340 teaches all of the limitations of the instant claim 9, except “a first set of design goals associated with the first persona.”
Benjamin ‘340 in view of De Biswas and Pankaj and Ndiwalana teach a first set of design goals associated with the first persona (see Ndiwalana; page.5, under 3. 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 Benjamin ‘813 to incorporate the teachings of De Biswas and Pankaj and Ndiwalana in order to achieve suitable and improved design model based on perspectives, goals and knowledge from different personas during a real-time collaboration session.
Claims 11 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 11-14 of copending Application No. 17696340 in view of De
Biswas US20130144566A1 and Pankaj US20190332246A1 and “From Personas to Design: Creating a Collaborative Multi-disciplinary Design Environment” by Ndiwalana, published in January 2005.
Claims 11 and 12 of Benjamin ‘340 teaches all of the limitations of the instant claim 11, except “a multi-objective model; the first selectable component is of a first component type, wherein the first selectable component is associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas; 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; the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component; 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.” Benjamin ‘340 in view of De Biswas and Pankaj and Ndiwalana teach a multi-objective model; the first selectable component is of a first component type; 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; the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component; 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 (see De Biswas, FIG.4, FIG.11, [142], [0153]). each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals (see Ndiwalana, Page.3, under Related Work, Page.5., under 3. PERSONAS). first selectable component is associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas (see Pankaj, [0031]) 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 ‘813 to incorporate the teachings of De Biswas and Pankaj and Ndiwalana in order to achieve suitable and improved design model based on perspectives, goals and knowledge from each of different personas during a real-time collaboration session.
Claims 13-14 of Benjamin ‘340 teaches all of the limitations of the instant claim 16, except “a first set of design goals associated with the first persona.”
Benjamin ‘340 in view of De Biswas and Pankaj and Ndiwalana teach a first set of design goals associated with the first persona (see Ndiwalana; page.5, under 3. 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 Benjamin ‘813 to incorporate the teachings of De Biswas and Pankaj and Ndiwalana in order to achieve suitable and improved design model based on perspectives, goals and knowledge from different personas during a real-time collaboration session.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 18 and 19 of copending Application No. 17696340 in view of De
Biswas US20130144566A1 and Pankaj US20190332246A1 and “From Personas to Design: Creating a Collaborative Multi-disciplinary Design Environment” by Ndiwalana, published in January 2005.
Claims 18 and 19 of Benjamin ‘340 teaches all of the limitations of the instant claim 17, except “a multi-objective model; the first selectable component is of a first component type, wherein the first selectable component is associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas; 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; the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component; 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.” Benjamin ‘340 in view of De Biswas and Pankaj and Ndiwalana teach a multi-objective model; the first selectable component is of a first component type; 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; the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component; 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 (see De Biswas, FIG.4, FIG.11, [142], [0153]). each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals (see Ndiwalana, Page.3, under Related Work, Page.5., under 3. PERSONAS). first selectable component is associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas (see Pankaj, [0031]) 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 ‘813 to incorporate the teachings of De Biswas and Pankaj and Ndiwalana in order to achieve suitable and improved design model based on perspectives, goals and knowledge from each of different personas during a real-time collaboration session.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6-7, 12, 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “a second selectable component of a second component type” should read “a second selectable component of the second component type.”
Claims 7, 12 and 18 also recite element “a second component type” are objected for the similar reason.
Claim 6 recites “the first persona is capable of modifying pre-defined selectable components of a second component type” should read “the first persona is capable of modifying pre-defined selectable components of the second component type.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 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 “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, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person is capable of observing and evaluating a set of selectable components, determining selection based on their own goals within a multi-objective design problem (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
Claim 1: The limitations of Claim 1: The limitations of “in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, one of persona is capable of modifying shared design model related to the first type of component based on prior decision in mind (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
Claim 1: The 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, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, at least one of person is capable of modifying at least one of components in the shared design model related to at least one of component type based on prior decision, and mentally generating potential design alternatives (candidate design solutions) that satisfy different personal goals, each alternative including other components of different component type (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” 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 mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Further, the following additional element – “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 selectable component, wherein: the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model, the first selectable component is of a first component type, wherein the first selectable component is associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas,” which are merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., receiving input associated with first selectable component) activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Additionally, the limitation “wherein: the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model, the first selectable component is of a first component type, wherein the first selectable component is associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas” merely describes that access to the first selectable component is limited to a particular user classification. This limitation does not specify any technical rule, algorithm , or non-conventional processing that constraints how the abstract idea is performed, and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the limitation “modifying … to generate …” and “generating, …, a first set of candidate design solutions …” which are merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer generic function to perform modification and generation steps at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For all of the additional limitations merely use a generic computer to perform data gathering (i.e., receiving input), and data processing (e.g., generating and modifying) to the abstract idea. The additional limitations do not recite any improvement to computer related technology, functioning of computer, or to another technology or technical field that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Instead, the additional limitations are describe at a high level of generality and reflect only generic computer functions and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 , 11 and 17 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1 , 11 and 17: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Further, The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); … ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); …; iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); …
The additional limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the additional limitations merely describe using generic computer to perform data gathering, data processing and displaying functions as described in the specification through generic computer operations. The claim does not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional component, improved computer architecture, or any particular technological mechanism that performs the generic computer functions in an unconventional manner. Therefore, the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to no more than applying computer components to perform well-understood, routine and conventional functions in the field of modeling, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1 , 11 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 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 “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 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.”
This merely specifies a second input is received and the shared design model is updated; therefore, it merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., receiving and updating data) activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3 recites “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.”
This merely specifies a second set of candidate design solutions is generated based on the updated shared design model; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process and merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a generating step (i.e., computer generic function) based on the updated modified shared design model at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4 recites “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.”
This merely specifies the distinct sets of design goals is combined to generate a priority list among all personas, and computing metrics to obtain a performance score based on the candidate design solutions; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (i.e., combining all design goals and defining performance score based on the priority list) and a mathematical concept (i.e., computing …), and merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a generating step (i.e., computer generic function) based on each candidate design solution at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5 recites “only the first persona is capable of adding or 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.”
This merely specifies only the first persona is capable of modifying the predefined selectable components and applying weights metrics of the performance of the candidate design solution; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (i.e., adding or removing data and determining weights associated with design goals apply to a set of metrics), and merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform an permission step (e.g., computer generic security function) that restrict which persona can take further action at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6 recites “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 a second component type.”
This merely specifies that the second persona provides permission to the first persona to modify pre-defined selectable components of a second component type; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (i.e., mentally determine whether modification of pre-defined selectable components should occur based on input from another persona). Therefore, the claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7 recites “receiving a second input associated with a second selectable component of a 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.”
This merely specifies that a second input for modify second selectable component is received from the first persona, and a modified second selectable component is updated that includes a different set of characteristics; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (i.e., mentally modifying second selectable component associated with characteristics), and merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data input (i.e., receiving) activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8 recites “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 computer-implemented that the first persona (i) is not capable of placing or deleting, and (ii) is capable of modifying.”
This merely specifies the capability set of first persona input; therefore, it merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform an permission step (e.g., computer generic security function) that restrict which persona can take further action at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9 recites “computing, for each candidate design solution included in the first set of candidate design solutions, a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution, wherein: the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items including (i) a first block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a first type having a first set of characteristics, and (ii) a second block item comprising a pre- defined selectable component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics, 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.”
This merely specifies computing a set of metrics associated with the performance of each candidate design solution based on characteristics included in the arrangement of the set of block items, which is applied first and second block items including different type of characteristics, and optimizing candidate design solution; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (i.e., optimization and defining block items associated with pre-defined selectable components) and a mathematic concept (i.e., computing…). Therefore, the claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10 recites “generating, based on the optimized candidate design solution, one or more suggested inputs for the modified shared design model.”
This merely specifies the suitable modified shared design model inputs are determined; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (i.e., determine modification based on defined optimization) and merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a generating step (i.e., computer generic function) based on the optimized candidate design solution at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12-16 and 18-20 recite the similar elements as claims 2-10, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional limitation of claim 15, “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” which is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements.
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, 6-7, 11-13, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
De Biswas US20130144566A1 in view of “From Personas to Design: Creating a Collaborative Multi-disciplinary Design Environment” by Ndiwalana, published in January 2005 and Pankaj US20190332246A1.
Claim 1, De Biswas teaches A computer-implemented method for generating a multi-objective model shared between multiple participants (fig.4, fig.11; abstract, “A real-time collaborative design platform… The platform also facilitates making the 3D model space accessible by multiple users over a network …”), 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 selectable component (fig.11, [0148], “… the user may edit or insert a change such as a change in geometry of a model, this change may be automatically updated in the published player.” [0100], “… component or sub-component in the 3D model space 400 is edited, modified…” [0025], “… a collaborative 3D model space configured for collaborative design by a plurality of users distributed over a network. Components accessible in the 3D model space may be concurrently accessible to the plurality of users. The system may further include 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.” Examiner note: a first input is interpreted as modify/edit the component or sub-component of geometry of model 1102.), wherein:
the first selectable component is included in a set of pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared design model (fig.11, chair backrest in a chair 1102, and all other selectable components of the chair or selectable components other than chair as pre-defined selectable components associated with a shared 3D model in the user interface 1100),
the first selectable component is of a first component type (fig.11, chair backrest is interpreted as first selectable component is of first component type), wherein
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 ([0142], “While the same design sub-space may be shared by multiple users, each sub-space may have its own set of extensions/application/representation-schemes to describe a design model. For example, a structural engineer may be interested in stress strain and structural analysis (note: a distinct set of design goals), whereas a daylight engineer may be interested in Lux level calculations. They may share the same sub-space but individually they may have completely different representations of the shared sub-space forming a portion of 3D model space (note: i.e., a portion of 3D model space represents in a multiple shared sub-space problem).” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that, given a shared model used by multiple personas with distinct goals (e.g., structural vs. lighting requirements), the model must represent a multi-objective design problem, because simultaneous consideration of multiple conflicting requirements is a well-known objective in collaborative design);
in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input, modifying the shared design model to generate a modified shared design model, wherein the modified shared design model includes the first selectable component (fig.11; [0148], “…user may edit or insert a change such as a change in geometry of a model, this change may be automatically updated in the published player.” Examiner note: the system received edit/modify as first input is interpreted as in response to receiving a confirmation of the first input, the system modifies the original component and generate an updated component as user desired, the 3D model is updated while the component is updated; therefore, the new/modified sharded design model includes modified first selectable component is generated by input); 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 ([0107], “The user interface 500 may operate to gather information and data from a user (i.e., persona) to guide the selection of components and sub-components from the 3D model space 400 stored on the back end server 208 as well as to display the results of selections or requested operations retrieved from or performed upon the back end server 208.” [0100], “This might be the case when any component or sub-component in the 3D model space 400 is edited, modified, downloaded, or otherwise acted upon so as to result in a reference to at least one additional version of at least one of the sub-components being identified in the 3D model space 400 or a sub-space thereof. As used herein, "[component 1-(2.1-(6)(7.1))(3-(4)(5))]" refers to a component 1 formed from branch 408a to version 2.1 of sub-component 2 and branch 408f to sub-component 3. Version 2.1 of sub-component 2 is formed from branch 408b to sub-component 6 and branch 408c to version 7.1 of sub-component 7, and sub-component 3 is formed from branch 408e to sub-component 4 and branch 408d to sub-component 5. 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. For example, other iterations of component 1 could be formed as [component 1-(2.2-(6)(7.2))(3-(4)(5))] which chooses version 2.2 of sub-component 2 and version 7.2 of sub-component 7, [component 1-(2.1-(6)(7.2))(3-(4)(5))] which chooses version 2.1 of sub-component 2 and version 7.2 of sub-component 7, etc.” [0142], “While the same design sub-space may be shared by multiple users, each sub-space may have its own set of extensions/application/representation-schemes to describe a design model. For example, a structural engineer may be interested in stress strain and structural analysis, whereas a daylight engineer may be interested in Lux level calculations. They may share the same sub-space but individually they may have completely different representations of the shared sub-space forming a portion of 3D model space.”. Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that any combination of nodes generate one candidate shared design solution of a set of candidate shared design solution. Regarding fig.4, different version of sub-component (e.g., 2.2, 7.2) as additional selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable components. For example, the chair backrest as one of the pre-defined selectable components in fig.11, and rest of components of chair or component other than chair as additional selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable components. another example, the structural engineer and daylight engineer described in [0142] represent different personas with distinct design goals such as structural analysis (stress strain and structure) vs. lighting analysis (Lux level). Although they operate within the same shared design model, each persona requires different component/sub-component configurations to meet their specific objectives that the system generate a candidate design solution based on the selection (i.e. inputs/edit) that satisfies the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas by incorporating additional selectable components (e.g., versions 2.2, 7.2, etc.) from the set of pre-defined selectable components to achieve the varied needs of each persona).
However, De Biswas does not teach each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals.
Ndiwalana teaches each persona in the plurality of personas includes a distinct set of design goals (Page.3, under Related Work, “LINK-UP enables the design team to create successful systems by helping them to focus on the critical parameters … In order to better tailor the various modules to the needs of different members of the design team, we sought to better understand the kinds of design collaborators to target and support within LINK-UP.” Examiner note: different members of the design team (personas) have different design needs, which are considered in the system. Page.5., under 3. PERSONAS, “We created a persona hypothesis for each category and designated teams to go out and identify potential candidates … The purpose was to better understand their motivations and goals, …” Examiner note: each persona has its own design motivations and goals. Under 3.1 Notification System Designer, “Our initial persona hypothesis was summarized as follows: As part of his research and teaching, Martin develops new types of Notification Systems … He would like a tool that: • Helps him with the requirements analysis process • Provides a structure to his design process, helping him think about and incorporate usability concerns • Helps him capture design knowledge emanating from his current projects so that he might reuse some of it in future projects … The notification system designer has a number of potential goals that we anticipated. They wanted to design novel hardware systems to solve emerging problems usually in multidisciplinary teams, contributing knowledge from their own specific area of expertise” as example demonstrates distinct set of design goals from Matin (i.e., each 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 Ndiwalana and using hypothesis-based personas in a multi-disciplinary academic setting to identify collaborators and tailor an integrated design and knowledge reuse environment to their needs and developing a concrete understanding of how different users could benefit from LINK-UP. Consequently, we were able to reflect each user’s activities and goals by creating a process structure that permits flexible and transparent traversal of the different modules in LINK-UP. Given this level of flexibility and the multi-disciplinary, team-based approach to design, we identified the need for tools that improve communication and awareness among team members. By developing and comparing a set of personas, we avoided the pitfall of creating over-generalized user definitions that merely adapt to the system design instead of guiding it. Another benefit of the personas was that they allowed us to run simulated, ad-hoc user evaluations at any point in the process of developing LINK-UP without having to depend heavily on resource-intensive user evaluations. Since the personas were based on the goals and needs identified from interviews, they helped model how users would use and react to the system (page.2, abstract and page.5, under 3 Personas).
However, De Biswas and Ndiwalana fail to teach first selectable component associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas.
Pankaj teaches first selectable component associated with only a first persona in a plurality of personas ([0031], “… each persona 153 is associated with a specific set of widgets 154. For example, a first persona 153 may be associated with a first set of widgets 154. A second persona 153 may be associated with a second set of widgets 154. A third persona 153 may be associated with a third set of widgets 154. A fourth persona 153 may be associated with a fourth set of widgets 154. In some embodiments, the widgets 154 included in different sets are mutually exclusive of each other.”)
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 Ndiwalana to incorporate the teachings of Pankaj and apply persona specific selectable component association in order to restrict a first selectable component to only a first persona while different selectable components are restricted to other personas. The combination of teachings would provide benefit of improving user specific control within the shared design model and prevention of unintended cross persona component modification.
Claim 2, De Biswas further 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 that is associated with a second persona in the plurality of personas ([0142], “While the same design sub-space may be shared by multiple users, each sub-space may have its own set of extensions/application/representation-schemes to describe a design model. For example, a structural engineer may be interested in stress strain and structural analysis, whereas a daylight engineer may be interested in Lux level calculations. They may share the same sub-space but individually they may have completely different representations of the shared sub-space forming a portion of 3D model space.” [0153], “a first user administrative control of version selection for sub-components of the first node. At 1706, the method 1700 may provide a second user administrative control of version selection for sub-components of the second node.” Examiner note: version selection for sub-components of the second node is interpreted as second component/subcomponent type, for example, chair seat can be selected and modified by second user (i.e., second persona). [0110] Though described as forming a portion of the user interface 500, model space rendering 508 may comprise a separate user interface in asynchronous or synchronous communication with the user interface 500 such as might comprise a third party modeling software package. As a result, the user interface 500 operates to coordinate the display of rendering data with third party modeling software. In this manner, users may leverage expertise on particular modeling software while interfacing with the more generic user interface 500. 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. The third-party user interface may therefore include a depiction of the 3D model space and/or version selection as described herein along with a separate region for component editing, analysis, and the like … 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. Examiner note: a POSITA would understand that combination of all teaches from [0110], [0142], [0153], fig.4 and fig.11 would allow a second persona modify second selectable component of a second component type); 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 ([0148], “… the user may edit or insert a change such as a change in geometry of a model, this change may be automatically updated in the published player.” [0100], “… component or sub-component in the 3D model space 400 is edited, modified…”; Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that second persona as second user enable to modify/edit component from the second component of the second type of pre-defined selectable components in the shared design model, and the shared design model is automatically updated based on the modification).
Claim 3, De Biswas further teaches 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 ([0107], “The user interface 500 may operate to gather information and data from a user to guide the selection of components and sub-components from the 3D model space 400 stored on the back end server 208 as well as to display the results of selections or requested operations retrieved from or performed upon the back end server 208.” [0100], “This might be the case when any component or sub-component in the 3D model space 400 is edited, modified, downloaded, or otherwise acted upon so as to result in a reference to at least one additional version of at least one of the sub-components being identified in the 3D model space 400 or a sub-space thereof. As used herein, "[component 1-(2.1-(6)(7.1))(3-(4)(5))]" refers to a component 1 formed from branch 408a to version 2.1 of sub-component 2 and branch 408f to sub-component 3. Version 2.1 of sub-component 2 is formed from branch 408b to sub-component 6 and branch 408c to version 7.1 of sub-component 7, and sub-component 3 is formed from branch 408e to sub-component 4 and branch 408d to sub-component 5. 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. For example, other iterations of component 1 could be formed as [component 1-(2.2-(6)(7.2))(3-(4)(5))] which chooses version 2.2 of sub-component 2 and version 7.2 of sub-component 7, [component 1-(2.1-(6)(7.2))(3-(4)(5))] which chooses version 2.1 of sub-component 2 and version 7.2 of sub-component 7, etc.” [0142], “While the same design sub-space may be shared by multiple users, each sub-space may have its own set of extensions/application/representation-schemes to describe a design model. For example, a structural engineer may be interested in stress strain and structural analysis, whereas a daylight engineer may be interested in Lux level calculations. They may share the same sub-space but individually they may have completely different representations of the shared sub-space forming a portion of 3D model space.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that distinct combination of nodes as new candidate shared design solution of the set of candidate shared design solution based on the selection/edit. Regarding fig.4, different version of sub-component (e.g., 2.2, 7.2) as additional selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable components. For example, the chair back as one of the pre-defined selectable components in fig.11, and one of rest of components as second selectable components, and rest of components as additional selectable components from the set of pre-defined selectable components. Also, the structural engineer and daylight engineer described in [0142] represent different personas with distinct design goals such as structural analysis (stress strain and structure) vs. lighting analysis (Lux level calculations). Although they operate within the same shared design model, each persona requires different component/sub-component configurations (i.e., including first and second candidate design solution) to meet their specific objectives that the system generate a candidate design solution based on the selection/edit (i.e. inputs) that satisfies the distinct sets of design goals for the plurality of personas by incorporating additional selectable components (e.g., versions 2.2, 7.2, etc.) from the set of pre-defined selectable components to achieve the varied needs of each persona).
Claim 6, De Biswas further 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 a second component type ([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.” [0191], “… Expert collaboration on a 3D modeling project may be facilitated by a 3D on-line collaboration modeling platform as described herein via an expert collaboration portal that may guide a user to select and interact with a subject matter expert. Likewise, expert collaboration may be part of a 3D design workflow that can be automated by the 3D model platform. In an example of combining version control with expert collaboration workflow, a user may define a workflow that includes a step of design review by an expert when a user makes changes to a component…”; [0196], “In an example of combining sub-space use with expert collaborative workflow functionality, a user may define a workflow for a 3D model space that includes a first collaboration action with a subject matter expert, such as review of final assembly. The workflow may further identify a second collaboration action with the subject matter expert for assembly of components accessible in a sub-space. For the first collaboration action, the subject matter expert may be given access to the entire 3D model space without access to modify the space. However, for the second collaboration action, the subject matter expert may be provided access to modify components in the sub-space to enact assembly improvement changes to the parts. In this way, a single subject matter expert may be invited to collaborate on a 3D design with very different access rights based on the space/sub-space in which the collaboration is taking place.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that the expert as functioning in the role of the “first persona” who receives a request for assistance from another user(i.e., the “second persona”) and has the capability to modify components. Additionally, the first persona also can be an expert that responds assistance from second persona to modify pre-defined selectable components of a second component type).
Claim 7, De Biswas The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a second input associated with a second selectable component of a second component type to modify the second selectable component ([0148], “… the user may edit or insert a change such as a change in geometry of a model, this change may be automatically updated in the published player.” [0100], “… component or sub-component in the 3D model space 400 is edited, modified…”; Examiner note: a second input is interpreted as modify/edit the second component or sub-component of geometry of model 1102 other than chair backrest), 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 (fig.11, components (e.g., chair seat or guitar) as pre-defined selectable components of the second component type of 3D model including set of characteristics (e.g., dimension or color or geometry) in the user interface 1100. [0142], “While the same design sub-space may be shared by multiple users, each sub-space may have its own set of extensions/application/representation-schemes to describe a design model. For example, a structural engineer may be interested in stress strain and structural analysis, whereas a daylight engineer may be interested in Lux level calculations. They may share the same sub-space but individually they may have completely different representations of the shared sub-space forming a portion of 3D model space.” Examiner note: a POSITA would understand the user as first persona (e.g., designer) enable to modify/edit (i.e., second input) chair seat or guitar (i.e., second component type) with different characteristics including geometry, color or dimension); 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 ([0148], “… the user may edit or insert a change such as a change in geometry of a model, this change may be automatically updated in the published player. Examiner note: a POSITA would understand the user as first persona (e.g., designer) enable to modify/edit (i.e., second input) chair seat or guitar as second component type including different characteristics including geometry, color or dimension to generate an updated guitar has different characteristics, such as different color or size).
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 further teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein:
the modified shared design model includes an arrangement of a set of block items (fig.11, chair and other components in different grids are interpreted as an arrangement of a set of block items in 3D model); and
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 (fig.11, voxels for the chair and another component in the same grid comprises a set of voxels defined by one or more sets of vertices).
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, [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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas and
Ndiwalana and Pankaj as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “PriEsT: an interactive decision support tool to estimate priorities from pairwise comparison judgments.” By Siraj, published in October 2013.
Claim 4, De Biswas fails to teach , but Ndiwalana teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
(See Ndiwalana, page.9, under 3.5 Reflections about Personas “Our solution is to develop application profiles where each profile allows a single persona to traverse a given set of modules in ways that meet their goals and allow task completion while accessing the same common knowledge repository of LINK-UP.” It discloses each persona has a set of goals and each persona’s goals are supported through separate application profiles and they all access the same shared system/repository, therefore, Ndiwalana teaches distinct sets of design goals among 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 to incorporate the teachings of Ndiwalana and using personas in a multi-disciplinary academic setting to identify collaborators and tailor an integrated design and knowledge reuse environment to their needs and developing a concrete understanding of how different users could benefit from LINK-UP. Consequently, we were able to reflect each user’s activities and goals by creating a process structure that permits flexible and transparent traversal of the different modules in LINK-UP. Given this level of flexibility and the multi-disciplinary, team-based approach to design, we identified the need for tools that improve communication and awareness among team members. By developing and comparing a set of personas, we avoided the pitfall of creating over-generalized user definitions that merely adapt to the system design instead of guiding it. Another benefit of the personas was that they allowed us to run simulated, ad-hoc user evaluations at any point in the process of developing LINK-UP without having to depend heavily on resource-intensive user evaluations. Since the personas were based on the goals and needs identified from interviews, they helped model how users would use and react to the system. We briefly elaborate on each of our personas below (page.2, abstract and page.5, under 3 Personas).
However, De Biswas and Ndiwalana and Pankaj fail to teach combine goals to generate a priority list and 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; generating, for each candidate design solution, a performance score based on the priority list.
Siraj teaches combine goals to generate a priority list (page.9, under 5. Case Study: Telecom Backbone Selection, “The four alternatives are Fiber-optic cable (G1), Power-line communication (G2), Microwave link (G3) and Satellite communication (G4). The problem was solved using AHP and the criteria used to compare these alternatives were grouped into six major categories including technical, infrastructural, economic, social, regulatory and environmental factors.” See also 5.3. Prioritization using PrInT. Examiner note: combining multiple goals from different judgment matrices (similar to different persona’s goas) into a unified prioritization.);
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 (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. 14, line 5, “The final weights calculated after these improvements are given in Table 3 in normalized form.” Table 3. Weights suggested by PriEsT for the backbone infrastructure options. page.14, Table 4 Table 4 lists the solutions for Atop, each with Weights w1, w2…; Page.10, above 5.1 Investigation using PriEsT, “The two PCMs for the Technical and Infrastructure categories, Atech and Ainfra, have been found to be intransitive and should be investigated along with Atop for their impact on the final result.” Page.11, last paragraph, “The priority vectors obtained using EV and GM are given in Table 2. The ideal ranking possible for this PCM is A → B → C → D → E → F, however, the ranking order suggested by EV is A → B → C → D → F → E. Although the judgments were found to be transitive, the EV method has violated order of preference for one judgment…” it shows that distinct goal categories are modeled independently and then combine into a final composite solution (Atop) is interpreted as generating a candidate design solution from distinct goals. Examiner note: PriEsT computes multiple metrics for each candidate design solution to evaluate performance);
generating, for each candidate design solution, a performance score based on the priority list (fig,9 -11 shows plots candidate solutions on TD-TD2 planes showing how scores are derived from the metrics and priority structure. Page.15, under FIG.9, “The overall weights generated with the help of these solutions will be wG1 = 21.3%, wG2 = 19.7%, wG3 = 29.4% and wG4 = 30.6%.” page.14, Table 4 Table 4 lists the solutions for Atop, each with Weights w1, w2…;).
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 Ndiwalana and Pankaj to incorporate the teachings of Siraj and apply a priority estimation tool, PriEsT, that has been developed to support AHP decision making. In contrast to existing software tools based on AHP, PriEsT better assists decision makers (DMs) to interactively identify and revise their inconsistent judgments based on newly proposed consistency measures. Further, PriEsT offers multiple equally-good solutions using multi-objective optimization - hence the DM has the flexibility to select any of these nondominated solutions according to his/her requirements.
Claim 5, De Biswas and Ndiwalana teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
only the first persona is capable of adding or removing a selectable component of the first component type in the shared design model (see De Biswas, [0124], “… For example, if alterations have been made to subcomponent 7.1 of FIG. 4, the newly altered version may be stored as new version sub-component 7.3. In other exemplary embodiments, sub-components may have been added to the portion of the hierarchical 3D model space 400 comprising sub-space 404. For example, sub-component 7 of sub-space 404b may now branch to a newly created sub-component 8.” [0153], “At 1704, the method 1700 may provide a first user administrative control of version selection for sub-components of the first node (note: i.e., only the first persona) ….” [0142], “a structural engineer may be interested in stress strain and structural analysis, whereas a daylight engineer may be interested in Lux level calculations. They may share the same sub-space but individually they may have completely different representations of the shared sub-space forming a portion of 3D model space.” Examiner note: a POSITA would understand that combination of all teaches from [0124], [0142], [0153] and fig.4 and 11 would only allow a first persona (e.g., engineer or designer) adding the pre-defined selectable components of the first component type (e.g., fig.4, left side of sub-component as first component type and right side of sub-component as second component type) such as newly created sub-component 8 after sub-components 7.1 and 7.2) in the shared design model), and
a first set of design goals associated with the first persona (see Ndiwalana; page.5., under PERSONAS, “We created a persona hypothesis for each category and designated teams to go out and identify potential candidates … The purpose was to better understand their motivations and goals, … Personas aided us in developing a concrete understanding of how different users could benefit from LINK-UP. Consequently, we were able to reflect each user’s activities and goals by creating a process structure that permits flexible and transparent traversal of the different modules in LINK-UP.”)
However, De Biswas and Ndiwalana and Pankaj fail to teach apply a first set of weights to a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution.
Siraj teaches applies a first set of weights to a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution (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. 14, line 5, “The final weights calculated after these improvements are given in Table 3 in normalized form.” Table 3. Weights suggested by PriEsT for the backbone infrastructure options. page.14, Table 4 Table 4 lists the solutions for Atop, each with Weights w1, w2…; Page.10, above 5.1 Investigation using PriEsT, “The two PCMs for the Technical and Infrastructure categories, Atech and Ainfra, have been found to be intransitive and should be investigated along with Atop for their impact on the final result.” Page.11, last paragraph, “The priority vectors obtained using EV and GM are given in Table 2. The ideal ranking possible for this PCM is A → B → C → D → E → F,…”).
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 Ndiwalana and Pankaj to incorporate the teachings of Siraj and apply a priority estimation tool, PriEsT, that has been developed to support AHP decision making. In contrast to existing software tools based on AHP, PriEsT better assists decision makers (DMs) to interactively identify and revise their inconsistent judgments based on newly proposed consistency measures. Further, PriEsT offers multiple equally-good solutions using multi-objective optimization - hence the DM has the flexibility to select any of these nondominated solutions according to his/her requirements.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas and
Ndiwalana and Pankaj as applied to claim 1 and 17 above, and further in view of “OBJECT-SPECIFIC ROLE-BASED ACCESS CONTROL” by Mundbrod, published in Feb. 2019.
Claim 8, De Biswas and Ndiwalana and Pankaj teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first persona (see De Biswas i.e., engineer or designer; see also Ndiwalana and Pankaj) is associated with a capability set that specifies:
a first subset of pre-defined selectable components of the first component type (see De Biswas, fig.4, first subset (2.1 or 2.2)) that
a second subset of pre-defined selectable components of the second component type (see De Biswas, fig.4, second subset (7.1 or 7.2)) that the first persona
However, De Biswas and Ndiwalana and Pankaj fail to teach a first subset that (i) only the first persona is capable of placing of deleting, and (ii) the first persona is not capable of modifying; and
a second subset that the first persona (i) is not capable of placing or deleting, and (ii) is capable of modifying.
Mundbrod teaches a first subset that (i) only the first persona is capable of placing or deleting (page.18, para.4, “First, the creation of an object-specific role assignment in relation to a specific guarded object may be limited by a dedicated privilege. In consequence, only those agents with an object-specific role covering such a privilege may create an object-specific role assignment linking an agent to an object-specific role in relation to a given guarded object.” Page.21, para.2, “privileges can be quickly granted or removed to any number of agents obtaining a particular object-specific role.” Examiner note: the privilege assignment, which means a single agent/persona may be privileged to place or delete a component), and (ii) the first persona is not capable of modifying (page.18, para.4, “In consequence, only those agents with an object-specific role covering such a privilege may create an object-specific role assignment linking an agent to an object-specific role in relation to a given guarded object. Furthermore, an agent cannot assign any object-specific role with privileges other than the ones the agent obtains with its current object-specific role assignment.” Examiner note: the privileges are based on object-specific roles and the user does not have the privilege in their role, they cannot perform action (e.g., update); therefore, if the first persona lacks the “modify” privilege in their role for the first subset, the they system prevents them from modifying it, even they can place or delete it); and
a second subset that the first persona (i) is not capable of placing or deleting (page.18, para.3, “an agent may want to assign a different object-specific role to another agent. Then, one or several agents, who obtain an object-specific role with parameter ScopeManager being assigned to a parental guarded object, take the decision whether or not the object-specific role assignment can be created.” Page.21, “If the object-specific role assignment does not reference the given guarded object, it has to be evaluated whether the object-specific role assignment references any parental guarded object …” Examiner note: placement or deletion is controlled by scope and role assignment means a persona may be restricted from creating or deleting subset based on assignment), and (ii) is capable of modifying (page.22, last paragraph, “Assume that object-specific roles have been created and privileges have already been allocated to them. Then, an agent obtaining an object-specific role through a corresponding role assignment may perform an action.” FIG.10; page.23, para.1, “the agent may want to add a new (recruitment) process … the call is interrupted with a Java interceptor enforcing access control. Figure 10 shows the procedure of enforcing ORAC with the help of an interceptor (e.g., if access check failed: access denied and If access check ok: call addProcess()).” Examiner note: modification of an object/subset is only permitted if the persona has the corresponding role privilege).
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 Ndiwalana and Pankaj to incorporate the teachings of Mundbrod and apply the generic approach of object-specific role-based access control (ORAC). On one hand, ORAC enables information system engineers, administrators and users to utilize the well-known principle of roles. On the other, ORAC allows realizing the access to objects in a fine-grained way where required. The approach was systematically established according to well-elicited key requirements for fine-grained access control in information systems.
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) 9-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas
and Ndiwalana and Pankaj as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Stoddart US 20190347382 A1.
Claim 9, De Biswas and Ndiwalana further teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
solutions (see De Biswas; fig.5, one combination of nodes (i.e., one version) of component in the first set combination of nodes (i.e., different versions) of component), (fig.11, chair and other components in different grids are interpreted as an arrangement of a set of block items in 3D model) including (i) a first block item comprising a pre-defined selectable component of a first type having a first set of characteristics (fig.11, chair including seat and back have a first type of a set of characteristic (e.g., dimension or color or geometry); Note: chair back and chair seat are interpreted as at least one of the selectable components (i.e., chair back or chair seat) from a set of pre-defined selectable components (i.e., chair including chair back and chair seat)), and (ii) a second block item comprising a pre- defined selectable component of a second type having a second set of characteristics that is different than the first set of characteristics, the set of metrics is computed based on one or more sets of characteristics included in the arrangement of the set of block items (fig.11, another components (i.e., other than chair) in the different grid would have a second type of a set of characteristic (e.g., dimension or color or geometry) associate to the component that is different than the first set of characteristics; Note: as discussed above the chair back and chair seat are interpreted as at least one of the selectable components (i.e., chair back or chair seat) from the set of pre-defined selectable components; therefore, It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the another component would also include sub-components); and
(see De Biswas; fig.5, one combination of nodes (i.e., one version) of component in the first set combination of nodes (i.e., different versions) of component), (see Ndiwalana; page.5, under 3. PERSONAS, “We created a persona hypothesis for each category and designated teams to go out and identify potential candidates … The purpose was to better understand their motivations and goals, … Personas aided us in developing a concrete understanding of how different users could benefit from LINK-UP. Consequently, we were able to reflect each user’s activities and goals by creating a process structure that permits flexible and transparent traversal of the different modules in LINK-UP.”).
However, De Biswas and Ndiwalana and Pankaj fail to teach computing a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution; and 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.
Stoddart teaches computing a set of metrics associated with the performance of the candidate design solution; and 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 (abstract, “the generative design application computes a first set of metric values based on a set of metrics associated with design goal(s) and a first set of parameter values for a parameterized automobile model.” [0030], “a different optimization type (not shown in FIG. 2) for each design metric included in the metric definition list 124. The optimization type for a design metric specifies a goal for the design metric in any technically feasible fashion. For instance, in some embodiments, each of the optimization types is equal to minimize, maximize, pass/fail, minimize within range, or maximize within range. In other embodiments, each of the optimization type may specify one or more of minimize, maximize, a range, and a Boolean associated with a pass/fail condition.”).
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 Ndiwalana and Pankaj to incorporate the teachings of Stoddart, and apply the generative design application computes a first set of metric values based on a set of metrics associated with design goal(s) and a first set of parameter values for a model into the system and methods for enabling real-time collaboration in 3D modeling and simulation because less time and effort are required to generate and evaluate multiple designs and then optimize those designs relative to more manual prior art approaches [0007].
Claim 10, De Biswas and Ndiwalana and Pankaj fail to teach, but Stoddart 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 ([0074], “At step 512, the evaluation engine 160 sets the optimized design space 172 equal to the generational design space 154, and the exploration engine 180 displays at least a portion of the optimized design space 172 via the GUI 192. At step 514, the exploration engine 180 interacts with a designer via the GUI 192 to determine the production design(s) 198 from the designs included in the optimized design space 172. At step 516, for each of the production designs 198(s), the exploration engine 180 transmits a least one CAD geometry model 410 representing the production design 198 to any number of software applications that perform subsequent design and/or manufacturing activities based on the production design(s) 198. The exploration engine 180 and/or the generative design application 130 may also transmit any number of representations, amount and type of design data, and amount and type of additional data associated with the production design(s) 198 to software application(s) for further design and/or manufacturing activities.”).
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 Ndiwalana and Pankaj to incorporate the teachings of Stoddart, and apply the generative design application computes a first set of metric values based on a set of metrics associated with design goal(s) and a first set of parameter values for a model into the system and methods for enabling real-time collaboration in 3D modeling and simulation because less time and effort are required to generate and evaluate multiple designs and then optimize those designs relative to more manual prior art approaches [0007].
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) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Biswas and
Ndiwalana and Pankaj as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of “PriEsT: an interactive decision support tool to estimate priorities from pairwise comparison judgments,” By Siraj, published in October 2013 and Stoddart US 20190347382 A1.
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 Ndiwalana
and Pankaj as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of “PriEsT: an interactive decision support tool to estimate priorities from pairwise comparison judgments.” By Siraj, published in October 2013 and Stoddart US 20190347382 A1.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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