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 12/08/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 18 and 20 have been amended, no claim has been added or canceled. Thus claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
…
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).
Furthermore, the amended claims are not directed towards mental processes. The Memorandum to technology centers 2100, 2600, and 3600 dated August 4, 2025, entitled Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 (herein the "August Memo") "provides important reminders pertaining to the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO's) subject matter eligibility guidance," including "reliance on the mental process grouping of abstract ideas." The August Memo indicates that "[t]he mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." In that vein, the August Memo also states that "a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance, when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)."See also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Here, the amended claims recite the specific step of rendering the design model for display, wherein the design model comprises a three-dimensional (3D) voxel grid. This step quite clearly requires the use of a computing device and is not a step that can be performed in someone's mind or using pen/paper. In particular, a design model comprising a three-dimensional (3D) voxel grid is computationally intensive and cannot be rendered for display 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 12/08/2025 [pages 8-9]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagree that 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.
As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III): Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
However, regarding claim limitations “generating a first recommendation for optimizing the design model, wherein the first recommendation specifies a sequence of commands to be executed on the design model,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Please refer to the current Office action for the detailed analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101, Step 2A, Prong One.
The recited limitation “rendering the design model for display, wherein the design model comprises a three-dimensional (3D) voxel grid the design model comprises a three-dimensional (3D) voxel grid” merely describes the environment in which the abstract idea is performed and amounts to data output activity (rendering for displaying). The limitation does not change the nature of claimed operations, which include observing and evaluating design model, mentally listing a sequence of actions for optimize the design model.
Therefore, the claim limitation is a “mental process”, similar to the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2A, Prong One is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
Second, the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application.
In Ex Parte Desiardins, the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board explained that "[o]n the one hand, claims '[g]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use' are not patent eligible.... On the other, claims directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field are patent eligible." See Ex Parte Desiardins, Decision on Request for Rehearing at 7-8 (emphasis added); see also Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 4-5 ("[i]n computer-related technologies, examiners can conclude that claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two by finding that a claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception ... [t]his consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem"); MPEP § 2106.04(d) ("[l]imitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: [a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field"). Applicant submits that the amended claims meet this standard.
In that regard, the amended claims provide improvements to technology, rather than generally linking a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In particular, the claimed approach is directed towards the practical application of rendering and optimizing a design model comprising a 3D voxel grid via recommendation visualizations. See Application, paragraphs [0337] and [0342]. Through this practical application, the claimed approach imparts the technological improvement of rendering a design model as a 3D voxel grid and optimizing the design model via recommendation visualizations for improving the design model. Accordingly, with the disclosed techniques, the design model can be rendered with less latency using fewer computing resources and can be improved through incremental optimization. See Application, paragraphs [0010] and [0014]; see also Ex Parte Desiardins at 8-9 (where the Panel cites various advantages expressly described in the Specification to support patent eligibility); Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 4 ("[t]he examiner is reminded to consult the specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field, and evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement").
In addition, these limitations place substantive and meaningful limits on the scope of the claims and similarly place substantive and meaningful limits on any purported abstract idea, thereby integrating any purported abstract idea into the practical application of generated computer-aided designs. See MPEP at § 2106.04(d) ("[a] claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception"); see also MPEP at § 2106.04(d)(I), citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that recite specifically limited steps or elements that effect a technological improvement or useful result are not abstract).
As the foregoing illustrates, any purported abstract idea recited in the amended claims is integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible.
Because the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, and because the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application, the present claims are subject-matter eligible under Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance.
(see Response filed 12/08/2025 [pages 9-11]).
In response to applicant's argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that “the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application.”
In order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” In other words, the specification should describe the claimed improvement over the background invention or existing technology, and the claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements (emphasis added) by specifying how the claimed improvement perform the additional element different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
However, the additional limitations, for example, “rendering the design model for display, wherein the design model comprises a three-dimensional (3D) voxel grid” and “rendering a first visualization for the first recommendation, wherein the first visualization includes a set of markers that are integrated within the design model and visually illustrate the sequence of commands specified in the first recommendation,” are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity as data output (i.e., data presentation and visualization of results), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do not recite any specific improvement to voxel modeling, rendering algorithms, computer graphics, or computer functionality. Instead, the additional limitations merely specify that the abstract idea is performed in a particular graphical environment and that the results are displayed using visual markers and command information. Therefore, the rendering limitations function only as a generic display mechanism for presenting the design model and the results of the abstract idea and do not meaning limit the judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f): “Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.” Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(a), II.: "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." The asserted improvements or benefits from the instant specification (e.g., the design model can be rendered with less latency using fewer computing resources and can be improved through incremental optimization) do not reflect on the claimed additional limitations (rendering steps), and the claim does not recite any non-conventional rendering techniques, data structures, algorithms, or processing rules that would achieve the asserted improvements.
Further, in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 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 (rendering, displaying , illustrating) without specifying any particular technical rules or processing techniques that improve computer functionality or any other technical field. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims remain directed to the abstract idea.
For Step 2B, 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 computer modeling and graphical display, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B, and independent claims 1, 11 and 20, 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:
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 conventional design applications utilized design models comprising complex continuous geometries that required extensive storage and processing resources for rendering the design models, thus incurring significant latencies during rendering. Further, when optimizing a particular design model, conventional design applications are incapable of incremental optimization and perform "all or nothing" optimization, thus limiting user control and user involvement in the design optimization process. See Application, paragraphs [0003] - [0007]. The present Application also makes clear that one of the technical advantages of the claimed approach is that the claimed approach utilizes a design model comprising a 3D voxel grid which does not involve the storage and processor-intensive rendering operations associated with the continuous geometries utilized for conventional design models, thereby allowing the design model to be rendered using fewer computing resources and with less latency. In addition, the claimed approach enables incremental optimization of the design model via recommendation visualizations, thus providing greater user control and user involvement in the design optimization process relative to the conventional "all or nothing" approach to optimizing design models. See Application, paragraphs [0010] and [0014]. Therefore, among other things, the claimed approach solves the above technical problems 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, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed towards a technical solution to a technical problem necessarily recite more than an abstract idea).
(see Response filed 12/08/2025 [pages 11-12]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner disagrees.
The cases cited by Applicant 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 technical solution, algorithm, non-conventional processing technique, and do not recite any specific technical mechanism, data structure, rendering technique, voxel processing method, or computer architecture that achieves the asserted benefits. Instead, the claims recite generic rendering and visualization steps that merely present information within a graphical environment related to the abstract idea.
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").”
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 do not recite additional elements integrate judicial exception into a practical application, and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 103 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
Amended claim 1 recites rendering a first visualization for the first recommendation, wherein the first visualization includes a set of markers that are integrated within the design model and visually illustrate the sequence of commands to be executed on the design model specified in the first recommendation. None of the cited references teaches or suggests these limitations. Therefore, no combination of the cited references can teach or suggest each and every limitation of amended claim 1.
In the Office Action, the Examiner argues that Farrah discloses the above claim limitations of claim 1. See Office Action, pages 16-17. Applicant disagrees.
Farrah discloses a system and method for tracking and viewing changes to information stored in a data structure via a visual editing environment. See Farrah, Abstract. The system includes a Graphical User Interface (GUI) comprising a visual editing environment window 120 and a history window 117. The visual editing environment window 120 displays a functional block diagram comprising functional blocks 121a and 121b connected by a data flow indicator 121c. The history window 117 displays the status of current and previously issued user commands. See id, paragraph [0069] and FIG. 4.
In the rejections, the Examiner maps the design model, recited in prior claim 1, to the functional block diagram displayed in the visual editing environment window 120, disclosed in Farrah; and rendering a first visualization for the first recommendation, recited in prior claim 1, to displaying the status of issued user commands in the history window 117, disclosed in Farrah. See Office Action, pages 16-17. However, the issued user commands disclosed in Farrah are not equivalent to the commands specified in the first recommendation as recited in amended claim 1. In particular, amended claim 1 recites that the first recommendation specifies a sequence of commands to be executed on the design model (functional block diagram).
In contrast, the issued user commands disclosed in Farrah are commands that are already issued by the user for which the execution status is being displayed in the history window 117. In that regard, displaying the status of issued user commands as disclosed in Farrah cannot and does not teach or suggest rendering a first visualization for the first recommendation that specifies a sequence of commands to be executed on the design model, as recited in amended claim 1. In addition, in Farrah, the issued user commands are displayed in a history window 117 that is separate from the visual editing environment window 120 that displays the functional block diagram (design model). In that regard, Farrah also does not teach or suggest that the displayed user commands are integrated within the design model (functional block diagram), as further recited in amended claim 1.
In view of at least these distinctions, Applicant submits that Farrah cannot be properly interpreted as teaching or suggesting the above limitations of amended claim 1.
A careful review of the other references cited by the Examiner shows that the other references also fail to teach or suggest the above limitations of amended claim 1.
As the foregoing illustrates, no combination of the cited references can teach or suggest each and every limitation of amended claim 1. Therefore, amended claim 1 and all claims dependent thereon are in condition for allowance in view of the cited references. Further, each of independent claims 11 and 20 is amended to recite limitations similar to those discussed above in conjunction with allowable amended claim 1. Therefore, amended claims 11 and 20 and all claims dependent thereon, respectively, are in condition for allowance for at least the reasons set forth herein.
(see Response filed 12/08/2025 [pages 12-13]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Schmidt (US20140253541A1) teaches generating recommendations for optimizing a three-dimensional design model, and the recommendations specify executable repair actions that are applied in an ordered manner within the model repair GUI. As previously explained, the repair actions constitute a sequence of commands associated with optimizing the design model. Schmidt further teaches rendering visual indicator (defect indicators) within the displayed design model that respond to applied commands, thereby providing visual feedback within the model context of the design model. The Examiner was not using Farrah (US 20080072209A1) to teach generation of the command sequence, which is already taught by Schmidt. Rather, Farrah is cited for the well-known GUI technique of visually presenting command sequences or command status information in an ordered manner (e.g., via a history or status display) to improve user understanding and interaction.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim does not require that the entire sequence of commands be rendered exclusively within a single view or integrated within the design model, and the visualization occur prior to execution of the commands. The limitation “to be executed” characterized the nature of the commands, not the timing of the visualization.
Further, the claim recites that the visualization includes markers integrated within the design model that visually illustrate the sequence of commands. Schmidt already teaches markers (defect indicators) displayed within the design model that change in response to executed commands. Farrah merely reinforces that visually presenting command order or status information in an ordered manner is a known and predictable user interface technique. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings to visually illustrate command sequencing while operating on a design model.
For the amended limitation specifying that the design model comprises a three-dimensional voxel grid, Douglas (US20200409480A1), as cited in the precious Office Action, teaches voxels in a 3D model in which commands specify location within the voxel grid and corresponding markers or indicators reside at the locations. Incorporating Douglas into the existing combination merely defines the data structure of the design model and does not change the nature of the previously applied rejection.
Therefore, the combination of teachings Schmidt in view of Farrah and Douglas teach or suggest the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 20. Therefore, the rejection of amended claims 1, 11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 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 11-19 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and falls within the statutory category of manufacture;
Yes, Claim 20 is directed to system and falls within the statutory category of machine.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “generating a first recommendation for optimizing the design model, wherein the first recommendation specifies a sequence of commands to be executed on the design model,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating a design model, mentally determining possible improvements to optimize the design, such as deciding to remove material, add support or modify geometry, then mentally generate or write down a sequence of commands as an ordered set of steps (e.g., step1: remove; step 2: add; step 3: modify) to be applied to the design model (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A Prong I.
The elements of claims 11 and 20 are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Therefore, the elements of claims 11 and 20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 20 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 11 and 20: 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 recommendation visualizations when optimizing a design model” and “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 recommendation visualizations when optimizing a design model by performing the steps of:” and “system for generating recommendation visualizations when optimizing a design model, the system comprising: a memory storing a design application; and a processor coupled to the memory that executes the design application to perform the steps of.” These elements merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitations of the claims, “rendering the design model for display, wherein the design model comprises a three-dimensional (3D) voxel grid” and “rendering a first visualization for the first recommendation, wherein the first visualization includes a set of markers that are integrated within the design model and visually illustrate the sequence of commands specified in the first recommendation,” are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity as data output (i.e., data presentation and visualization of results), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do not recite any specific improvement to voxel modeling, rendering algorithms, computer graphics, or computer functionality. Instead, the additional limitations merely specify that the abstract idea is performed in a particular graphical environment and that the results are displayed using visual markers and command information. Therefore, the rendering limitations function only as a generic display mechanism for presenting the design model and the results of the abstract idea and do not meaning limit the judicial exception.
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 20 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 20: The claim does 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)); …
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, …; iii. Electronic recordkeeping, … (updating an activity log). iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,…
The additional limitations do not amount to an inventive concept because they recite well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities, such as displaying a digital design model, rendering graphical elements, and presenting information using marker and commands are known techniques in computer graphics and user interface design. The claims do not recite any unconventional way for rendering or any specialized rendering algorithm. Instead, the rendering limitations merely require the use of generic display and visualization techniques to present information associated with abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 11 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 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 and 12-19 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim 2 recites “a first command included in the sequence of commands specifies a first location within the 3D voxel grid, and a first marker that is included in the set of markers and corresponds to the first command resides at the first location within the 3D voxel grid,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of mentally selecting a location within the design model at which an action is to be performed, mentally specifying a command associated with the location, and mentally associating a marker with the action at the location to indicate where the action applies (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 2 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “the design model comprises a plurality of voxels, and the markers included in the set of markers are visually distinct from the voxels included in the plurality of voxels,” are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity as data output (i.e., data presentation and visualization of results) refers to claim 1, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 3 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “a first command included in the sequence of commands specifies a first type of action to be performed on the design model, a second command included in the sequence of commands specifies a second type of action to be performed on the design model, a first marker that is included in the set of markers and corresponds to the first command is rendered with a first appearance, and a second marker that is included in the set of markers and corresponds to the second command is rendered with a second appearance that is different than the first appearance.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of mentally generating or writing down a sequence of commands to represent different type of actions as a set of steps (e.g., step1: remove; step 2: add; step 3: modify) to apply to the design model (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity as data output (i.e., visualization of marker with different appearance) refers to claim 1, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 4 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “executing the sequence of commands specified in the first recommendation on the design model to generate an updated design model that improves one or more performance metrics associated with the design model.” The limitations are merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer/processor to perform optimization function with commands to generate an updated design model at high level of generality, is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic data processing function, 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 office finds that the claim 5 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “generating the design model from the updated design model by reversing the execution of the sequence of commands specified in the first recommendation.” The limitations are merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer/processor to perform revising function to restore the design model from the updated design model at high level of generality, is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic processing function, 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 office finds that the claim 6 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “displaying at least one of an amount of increased improvement or an amount of decreased improvement in a first performance metric associated with the design model that results from executing the sequence of commands specified in the first recommendation on the design model,” are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity as data output (i.e., display results), which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 7 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites “each marker included in the set of markers displays command information for a corresponding command included in the sequence of commands, and wherein the command information for the corresponding command includes at least one of a sequence index number, an action type, a voxel type, or at least one performance metric,” are merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity as data output (i.e., display marker with command information), which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 8 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites “executing a first command included in the sequence of commands on the design model to generate an updated design model, wherein at least one other command included in the sequence of commands is not executed on the design model.” The limitations are merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer/processor to perform optimization function with only one command to generate updated design model based on command at high level of generality, is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic processing function, 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 office finds that the claim 9 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites “reversing the execution of the first command in order to generate the design model from the updated design model.” The limitations are merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer/processor to perform revising function to restore the design model from the updated design model at high level of generality, is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic processing functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 10 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The elements of claims 12-14, 16-17 are substantially the same as those of claims 2, 4-5 and 7-8. Therefore, the elements of claims 12-14, 16-17 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 2, 4-5 and 7-8.
Claim 15 recites “the first recommendation improves one or more performance metrics associated with the design model when executed on the design model,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of mentally considering the application of a recommendation to a design and judging whether the resulting design improves performance metrics such as strength, efficiency or aesthetics based on experience or visual inspection (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 15 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 18 recites “an action type comprises at least one of adding a voxel, removing a voxel, or enhancing a voxel,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing the design model, mentally determining an action type, such as adding material, removing material, or reinforcing a portion of the design, to adjust the design (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 18 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 19 recites “ignoring a first command in the sequence of commands comprising removing the first command from the sequence of commands and removing a first marker in the set of markers that corresponds to the first command.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing the design model, evaluating the sequence of planned actions, and then mentally ignoring a particular action by deciding not to apply it, while also mentally disregarding or removing a corresponding marker or notation associated with the action (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 19 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and
103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set
forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-13, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Schmidt US20140253541A1 in view of Farrah US 20080072209 A1 and Douglas US20200409480A1.
Claim 1, Schmidt teaches A computer-implemented method for generating recommendation visualizations when optimizing a design model ([0008], “One embodiment of the invention includes a computer-implemented method for repairing a set of defects associated with a three-dimensional (3D) model …”), the method comprising:
rendering a design model for display ([0022], “Rendering engine 108 is a software application configured to generate and/or modify 3D model 110. Rendering engine 108 is also configured to render pixels that represent 3D model 110 to a display device included within I/O devices 104.”),
generating a first recommendation for optimizing the design model, wherein the first recommendation specifies a sequence of commands to be executed on the design model ([0023], Model repair application 112 is configured to generate model inspection and repair GUI 200 …, GUI 200 … to find and repair defects in a 3D model, such as 3D model 110…” [0027], “… control panel 230 includes a repair all button 323, … model repair application 112 is configured to automatically repair all defects found within 3D model 212 and/or shown within viewport 210.” [0037], “The context menu 324 may include different repair options, such as repair option 326 or repair option 328, which may correspond to different automatic repair algorithms to be executed in order to repair defect 214.” Examiner note: the system generates repair “recommendations” for optimizing a 3D model, and each repair corresponds to executable commands/algorithms (e.g., repair all, lock, ignore, or specific repair options), and these commands are sequenced to address different defects (e.g., first identify defects, then apply a selected repair option, then updated the model); and
rendering a first visualization for the first recommendation, wherein the first visualization includes a set of markers that are integrated within the design model and visually illustrate the sequence of commands specified in the first recommendation ([0025], “Defect indicator 224 indicates defect 214, defect indicator 226 indicates defect 216, and defect indicator 228 indicates defect 218. When rendering 3D model 212, model repair application 112 is configured to analyze that model to identify various defects, and to then display defect indicators that indicate the locations of the identified defects, as is shown.” [0037], “ Once a given defect has been repaired or locked, model repair application 112 may cause the corresponding defect indicator to change color or disappear entirely.” Examiner note: the defects and defect indicators (i.e., markers) are generated by the system and are displayed inside the viewport with the 3D design model and the defects and defect indicators (i.e., markers) visually respond to actions, illustrating the effect of commands applied to the design model).
However, Schmidt fails to teach visually illustrate the sequence of commands.
Farrah teaches visually illustrate the sequence of commands ([0069], “the GUI includes a history/status window 117 showing the status of current and previously issued user commands.”)
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 Schmidt to incorporate the teachings of Farrah, and apply visually illustrate the sequence of commands in order to provide to user with a clear and ordered history of prior modifications, thereby improving usability by allowing the user to understand the order related to changes were made to the design model, and provide more effectively manage, review, or undo individual steps within the design model.
However, Schmidt and Farrah fail to teach the design model comprises a three-dimensional (3D) voxel grid.
Douglas teaches the design model comprises a three-dimensional (3D) voxel grid ([0029], “cursor 100 overlaid on a three-dimensional medical image 102. In the illustrated example, the 3D cursor 100 defines a cubic volume of interest. The medical image 102 could include any portion of a body, or an entire body, for example and without limitation. For purposes of explanation the medical image 102 includes different types of tissue.” – Examiner note: medical image 102 is composed of many discrete elements (voxels) and cursor 100 is defined over this voxel grid).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmidt and Farrah to incorporate the teachings of Douglas, and apply voxel within a 3D model in order to represent the design model using a discrete 3D voxel gid rather than a continuous geometric representation, thereby enabling spatially indexed interaction and visualization within the design model.
Claim 2, Schmidt teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
a first command included in the sequence of commands specifies a first location ([0036], “Model repair application 112 is also configured to receive input from the end-user that indicates various different actions that may be executed relative to defect 214. For example, the end-user may left-click defect indicator 224 in order to cause model repair application 112 to automatically repair defect 214.” – examiner note: repair command at defect location), and
a first marker that is included in the set of markers and corresponds to the first command resides at the first location within the 3D [0025], “Defect indicator 224 indicates defect 214, defect indicator 226 indicates defect 216, and defect indicator 228 indicates defect 218. When rendering 3D model 212, model repair application 112 is configured to analyze that model to identify various defects, and to then display defect indicators that indicate the locations of the identified defects …” – examiner note: one of defect and defect indicators as first marker corresponding to a defect (i.e., command to repair), is displayed/resided at the location of the defect).
However, Schmidt and Farrah fail to teach command specifies a location within the 3D voxel grid and marker corresponds to the command resides at the first location within the 3D voxel grid.
Douglas teaches command specifies a location within the 3D voxel grid and marker corresponds to the command resides at the first location within the 3D voxel grid ([0029], “cursor 100 overlaid on a three-dimensional medical image 102. In the illustrated example, the 3D cursor 100 defines a cubic volume of interest. The medical image 102 could include any portion of a body, or an entire body, for example and without limitation. For purposes of explanation the medical image 102 includes different types of tissue.” – examiner note: medical image 102 is composed of many discrete elements (voxels) and cursor 100 is defined over this voxel grid. [0036], “Referring to FIG. 3, location indicators 300 and annotations 302 may be placed … to highlight locations or regions of concern within the interactive 3D cursor.”- examiner note: the placement of location indicators is equivalent to a command specifying a particular voxel location inside the 3D grid, and the location of indicators or annotations correspond to the user command and are visually located at the exact voxel position).
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 Schmidt and Farrah to incorporate the teachings of Douglas, and apply command specifies a location within the 3D voxel grid and marker corresponds to the command resides at the location within the 3D voxel grid in order to improve representation and modify design models by using voxel structures for more precise, flexible and accurate location, visualization of commands at defined 3D locations.
Claim 3, Schmidt teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the design model comprises (fig.2, 3D model 212; defects 214, 216,and 218, and defect indicator 224, 226 and 228 as markers).
However, Schmidt and Farrah fail to teach a plurality of voxels and markers are visually distinct from the voxels included in the plurality of voxels.
Douglas teaches a plurality of voxels and markers are visually distinct from the voxels included in the plurality of voxels ([0029], “… cursor 100 overlaid on a three-dimensional medical image 102. In the illustrated example, the 3D cursor 100 defines a cubic volume of interest. The medical image 102 could include any portion of a body, or an entire body, for example and without limitation. For purposes of explanation the medical image 102 includes different types of tissue.” - examiner note: medical image is a 3D image volume (CT/MRI) composed of many discrete elements (voxels) as a plurality of voxel. [0036], “Referring to FIG. 3, location indicators 300 and annotations 302 may be placed … to highlight locations or regions of concern within the interactive 3D cursor.” Examiner note: location indicators and annotations as markers visually distinct from the discrete elements (voxels).
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 Schmidt and Farrah to incorporate the teachings of Douglas, and using voxels volumetric structures in place of polygonal meshes and providing markers and annotations are visually distinct from the voxel elements in order to improve representation and modification of 3D design models with clearer and more accurate visualization at defined 3D locations.
Claim 4, Schmidt further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
a first command included in the sequence of commands specifies a first type of action to be performed on the design model ([0022], “Rendering engine 108 is a software application configured to generate and/or modify 3D model 110. Rendering engine 108 is also configured to render pixels that represent 3D model 110 to a display device included within I/O devices 104. Rendering engine 108 may perform various other operations with 3D model 110, including texture mapping and mesh transformation operations, and may also receive user input specifying different modifications and/or repairs to be made to 3D model 110.” Examiner note: first command provided by user to perform first type of action (modifications) on the design model),
a second command included in the sequence of commands specifies a second type of action to be performed on the design model ([0037], “The context menu 324 may include different repair options, such as repair option 326 or repair option 328, which may correspond to different automatic repair algorithms to be executed in order to repair defect 214. A given repair option may also allow the end-user to manually repair defect 214, and may provide various tools relevant to repairing the associated defect type.” Examiner note: a second command distinct from the first, correspond to a repair action performed on the model, which is different in type from modification),
a first marker that is included in the set of markers and corresponds to the first command is rendered with a first appearance (fig.2. indicator with large tip 228; [0025], “… 3D model 212 is illustrated as having various different defects, including a defect 214, a defect 216, and defect 218. In addition, various defect indicators are displayed that indicate the location of those different defects. Defect indicator 224 indicates defect 214, defect indicator 226 indicates defect 216, and defect indicator 228 indicates defect 218.” Examiner note: defect 218 and indicator 228 may corresponds to the first command and is displayed in Fig.2 with a first distinct appearance), and
a second marker that is included in the set of markers and corresponds to the second command is rendered with a second appearance that is different than the first appearance (fig.2, indicator with small tip 226 and [0025]; examiner note: defect 216 and indicator 226 may correspond to a second command and is rendered with a different appearance than defect 218 and indicator 228, as seen in Fig.2)).
Claim 8, Schmidt further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each marker included in the set of markers displays command information for a corresponding command included in the sequence of commands, and wherein the command information for the corresponding command includes at least one of a sequence index number, an action type, a voxel type, or at least one performance metric ([0036], “…, the end-user may left-click defect indicator 224 in order to cause model repair application 112 to automatically repair defect 214. The end-user may also right-click defect indicator 224 in order to cause model repair application 112 to generate a context menu 324.” Examiner note: defect indicator 224 as marker, the information displayed by the marker is type of defect (e.g., hole or chunk, or non-manifold defect) as command information since the type dictates which repair command will be applied (e.g., repairing a hole or a chunk), the marker displays command information in the form of an action type (e.g., hole repair, chunk repair, non-manifold repair) for a corresponding command included in the sequence of commands).
Claim 9, Schmidt further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising executing a first command included in the sequence of commands on the design model to generate an updated design model, wherein at least one other command included in the sequence of commands is not executed on the design model ([0037], “The context menu 324 may include different repair options, such as repair option 326 or repair option 328, which may correspond to different automatic repair algorithms to be executed in order to repair defect 214 … a given defect has been repaired or locked, model repair application 112 may cause the corresponding defect indicator to change color or disappear entirely.” Examiner note: first command executed (e.g., repair option 326), but other available commands (e.g., repair option 328, or manual repair) are not executed if only one is chosen).
Claim 10, Schmidt fails to teach, but Farrah teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising reversing the execution of the first command in order to generate the design model from the updated design model ([0058], “the interface module 42 … will generate a visual representation of the information stored in the data structure which shows the effect of reversing all of the selected types of changes that were made after a certain point in time (examiner note: corresponds to the first command), ...”).
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 Schmidt to incorporate the teachings of Farrah, and apply reversing all of the selected types of changes that were made after a certain point in time in order to restore the design model to its prior state, thereby allowing a user to efficiently undo modifications to restore the design model to its prior state and regenerate the original design for the updated model, improving flexibility and control in managing sequences of commands applied to the design model.
Claim 19, Schmidt further teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising, ignoring a first command in the sequence of commands comprising removing the first command from the sequence of commands and removing a first marker in the set of markers that corresponds to the first command ([0037], “… Context menu 324 may also include other options, such as a “lock” option that causes model repair application 112 to ignore defect 214. – Examiner note: “lock” option ignore defect is interpreted as ignoring a first command and repair command for the defect is not executed and excluded from further processing the repair sequence is interpreted as removing/ignoring the first command. [0037], “… Once a given defect has been repaired or locked, model repair application 112 may cause the corresponding defect indicator to change color or disappear entirely.” - Examiner note: defect indicator as marker is disappear entirely after choose “lock” option is interpreted as removing a first marker).
The elements of claims 11-13, 17 and 20 are substantially the same as those of claims 1, 2, 4 and 8. Therefore, the elements of claims 11-13, 17 and 20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1, 2, 4 and 8. Further, the additional limitation of claims 11 and 20, “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 recommendation visualizations when optimizing a design model by performing the steps of:” and “A system for generating recommendation visualizations when optimizing a design model, the system comprising: a memory storing a design application; and a processor coupled to the memory that executes the design application to perform the steps of:” – see Schmidt ([0019] and [0057]).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt and
Farrah and Douglas as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Fitch US 20110246155 A1.
Claim 5, Schmidt teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising executing the sequence of commands specified in the first recommendation on the design model to generate an updated design model that ([0023], Model repair application 112 is configured to generate model inspection and repair GUI 200 …, GUI 200 … to find and repair defects in a 3D model, such as 3D model 110…” [0027], “… control panel 230 includes a repair all button 323, … model repair application 112 is configured to automatically repair all defects found within 3D model 212 and/or shown within viewport 210.” [0037], “The context menu 324 may include different repair options, such as repair option 326 or repair option 328, which may correspond to different automatic repair algorithms to be executed in order to repair defect 214.” Examiner note: the system generates repair “recommendations” for optimizing a 3D model, and each repair corresponds to executable commands/algorithms (e.g., repair all, lock, ignore, or specific repair options), and these commands are sequenced to address different defects (e.g., first identify defects, then apply a selected repair option, then updated the model) – examiner note: repair/modification results an updated version of the design model).
However, Schmidt and Farrah and Douglas fail to teach generate an updated design model that improves one or more performance metrics.
Fitch teaches generate an updated design model that improves one or more performance metrics ([0027], “… The system selects one or more impact factors … and adjusts the baseline environmental and economic impact models based on the product to produce adjusted environmental and economic impact models for the building.” [0035], “Computing system 102 calculates the new energy usage for the adjusted building model … Computing system 102 determines the margin of improvement attributable to the applied energy efficiency strategy …” [0044], “each efficiency factor represents a percentage performance efficiency gain attributable to one or more of the energy efficiency strategies.”).
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 Schmidt and Farrah and Douglas to incorporate the teachings of Fitch, and apply generating updated design models with measurable improvements in performance metrics in order to provide updated models that showing improvements in performance metrics, thereby producing clearer and more accurate visualization and evaluation of design changes, and improving representation and usability of 3D design models.
Claim 6, Schmidt teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising ([0023], Model repair application 112 is configured to generate model inspection and repair GUI 200 …, GUI 200 … to find and repair defects in a 3D model, such as 3D model 110…” [0027], “… control panel 230 includes a repair all button 323, … model repair application 112 is configured to automatically repair all defects found within 3D model 212 and/or shown within viewport 210.” [0037], “The context menu 324 may include different repair options, such as repair option 326 or repair option 328, which may correspond to different automatic repair algorithms to be executed in order to repair defect 214.” Examiner note: the system generates repair “recommendations” for optimizing a 3D model).
However, Schmidt fails to teach generating the design model from the updated design model by reversing the execution of the sequence of commands.
Farrah teaches generating the design model from the updated design model by reversing the execution of the sequence of commands ([0058], “the interface module 42 … will generate a visual representation of the information stored in the data structure which shows the effect of reversing all of the selected types of changes that were made after a certain point in time, ...” see also [0025] and [0026]).
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 Schmidt to incorporate the teachings of Farrah, and apply reversing all of the selected types of changes that were made after a certain point in time in order to restore the design model to its prior state, thereby allowing a user to efficiently undo modifications to regenerate the original design for the updated model and improve flexibly and control in managing sequences of commands applied to the design model.
Claim 7, Schmidt teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, ([0023], Model repair application 112 is configured to generate model inspection and repair GUI 200 …, GUI 200 … to find and repair defects in a 3D model, such as 3D model 110…” [0027], “… control panel 230 includes a repair all button 323, … model repair application 112 is configured to automatically repair all defects found within 3D model 212 and/or shown within viewport 210.” [0037], “The context menu 324 may include different repair options, such as repair option 326 or repair option 328, which may correspond to different automatic repair algorithms to be executed in order to repair defect 214.” Examiner note: the system generates repair “recommendations” for optimizing a 3D model, and each repair corresponds to executable commands/algorithms (e.g., repair all, lock, ignore, or specific repair options), and these commands are sequenced to address different defects (e.g., first identify defects, then apply a selected repair option, then updated the model).
However, Schmidt and Farrah and Douglas fail to teach displaying at least one of an amount of increased improvement or an amount of decreased improvement in a first performance metric associated with the design model.
Fitch teaches displaying at least one of an amount of increased improvement or an amount of decreased improvement in a first performance metric associated with the design model ([0117], “Environmental and cost impact results are represented in a results panel 1010, which represents various factors, such as value, cost, value/cost ratio, energy CO.sub.2, net operating income (NOI), total CO.sub.2, NOI/CO.sub.2, cost ($) per unit reduction in CO.sub.2 (examiner note: factor is interpreted as performance metric) …” [0118], “the point of the triangles of indicators 1014 and 1016 indicate whether the change represents an increase or decrease relative to the baseline model.” [0143], “FIG. 14 is a diagram of an embodiment of a user interface 1400 including a dashboard of indicators 1402 depicting a summary of quantified differences between a proposed model relative to a baseline model.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmidt and Farrah and Douglas to incorporate the teachings of Fitch, and apply displaying an amount of increased improvement or an amount of decreased improvement in a first performance metric in order to provide users with clear feedback on the impact of executed repair or modification commands, thereby the design model can be assessed the performance changes, evaluating the effectiveness of correction/modification through amount of improvements or degradations, and improving flexibly and control in managing sequences of commands applied to the design model.
Claim 15, Schmidt teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the first recommendation ([0023], Model repair application 112 is configured to generate model inspection and repair GUI 200 …, GUI 200 … to find and repair defects in a 3D model, such as 3D model 110…” [0027], “… control panel 230 includes a repair all button 323, … model repair application 112 is configured to automatically repair all defects found within 3D model 212 and/or shown within viewport 210.” [0037], “The context menu 324 may include different repair options, such as repair option 326 or repair option 328, which may correspond to different automatic repair algorithms to be executed in order to repair defect 214.” Examiner note: the system generates repair “recommendations” for optimizing a 3D model).
However, Schmidt and Farrah and Douglas fail to teach first recommendation improves one or more performance metrics.
Fitch teaches first recommendation improves one or more performance metrics ([0027], “… The system selects one or more impact factors … and adjusts the baseline environmental and economic impact models based on the product to produce adjusted environmental and economic impact models for the building.” [0035], “Computing system 102 calculates the new energy usage for the adjusted building model … Computing system 102 determines the margin of improvement attributable to the applied energy efficiency strategy …” [0044], “each efficiency factor represents a percentage performance efficiency gain attributable to one or more of the energy efficiency strategies.”).
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 Schmidt and Farrah and Douglas to incorporate the teachings of Fitch, and apply improvements in performance metrics to Schmidt’s repair recommendations in order to provide updated models that not only resolve defects but also showing measurable performance improvements in performance metrics, thereby producing clearer and more accurate visualization and evaluation of design changes, and improving representation and usability of 3D design models.
The elements of claims 14 and 16 are substantially the same as those of claims 5 and 7. Therefore, the elements of claims 14 and 16 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 5-7.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt and Farrah and
Douglas as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Sennersten US 20200213426 A1.
Claim 18, Schmidt and Farrah and Douglas fail to teach, but Sennersten teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein an action type comprises at least one of adding a voxel, removing a voxel, or enhancing a voxel ([0096], “A voxel editor can provide the ability to make changes to an existing dataset by: Adding new voxels; Selecting voxels; Removing voxels; Modifying attributes of existing voxels.”).
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 Schmidt and Farrah and Douglas to incorporate the teachings of Sennersten, and apply a voxel editor can provide the ability to make changes to an existing dataset by adding new voxels, selecting voxels, removing voxels, or modifying attributes of existing voxels in order to allowing flexible and accurate control of design modifications at the volumetric level, thereby improving representation and modification of 3D structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
J. Gehrung et al., "A framework for voxel-based global scale modeling of urban environments, "The International Archives of the Photogrammetry Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, October 2016 discloses framework for the volumetric modeling and visualization of large scale urban environments.
K. Chang et al., “Building-GAN: Graph-Conditioned Architectural Volumetric Design Generation,” 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), April. 2021 discloses volumetric design generation conditioned on an input program graph. Instead of outputting dense 3D voxels, we propose a new 3D representation named voxel graph that is both compact and expressive for building geometries.
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