DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/02/2026 has been entered. As directed, claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18
and 20 have been amended, claims 3 and 13 have been canceled, and no claim is added. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 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:
…
A. 35 U.S.C. & 101 Guidance - Step 2A:
Applicant submits that the amended claims are not directed towards non- statutory subject matter 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. 01.2024, Last Revised Jan. 2024).
1. The Claims Do Not Fall Within Any Enumerated Grouping Of Abstract Ideas
First, according to the 2019 Guidance, for a claim to constitute an abstract idea, the claim must fall within the subject matter grouping of at least one of: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). Applicant submits that the amended claims do not recite any limitations falling within any of these enumerated groupings.
In that regard, the amended claims do not recite any mathematical relations, formulas, or calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). In the rejections, however, the Examiner asserts that the limitations of "computing a set of design-level metrics for the design model," recited in the independent claims, fall under the abstract group of mathematical concepts. In particular, the Examiner cites paragraph [0159] of the present specification as defining these limitations as involving calculation operations, and therefore these limitations are directed to a mathematical concept. See Office Action, pages 5-6. Notably, though, the MPEP makes clear that in order for a claim to recite a mathematical concept, the claim itself must recite the mathematical concept and not merely recite limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Thus, the Examiner cannot rely on portions of the present specification that may involve a mathematical concept, if those portions are not actually recited in the claims themselves in order to conclude that a claim recites a mathematical concept. Here, because the independent claims themselves do not recite any mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or mathematical calculations, the independent claims cannot be properly interpreted as reciting a mathematical concept under the MPEP.
In addition, the amended claims do not recite any limitations that can be properly interpreted as being directed towards organizing human activities that are categorized as abstract, such as fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(ll). Accordingly, the amended claims cannot be considered abstract under the category of organizing human activities.
Lastly, the amended claims are not directed towards mental processes because the claims recite limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. See Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 2 ("[a] claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)"); see also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(lll). For example, the amended claims recite the specific steps of rendering a design model for display, wherein the design model comprises an arrangement of voxels in a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels that includes a plurality of discrete 3D spaces, wherein each voxel in the arrangement of voxels is defined by a set of 3D coordinates that specify a particular location of a 3D space in the plurality of discrete 3D spaces that includes the voxel. These limitations quite clearly require the use of a computing device and are not operations that can be performed in someone's mind or using pen/paper. In particular, rendering the design model in the manner recited in the claimed approach is computationally intensive and cannot be performed without use of a computing device.
For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that the amended claims cannot be properly interpreted as being directed towards a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(111) ("[s]tep 2A determines whether: ... [t]he claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception"); see also MPEP § 2106.04(11) ("[t]he claim as a whole is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B, thereby concluding the eligibility analysis").
Because none of the limitations recited in the amended claims are directed towards any of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas, the amended claims cannot be properly interpreted as being abstract.
(see Response filed 06/02/2026 [pages 9-10]).
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.
a. the claims do recite mental process
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 “computing a first design-level metric for the design model based on a first plurality of voxel-level metrics associated with the design model, wherein each voxel-level metric in the first plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel in the arrangement of voxels comprising the design model; generating a first recommendation that includes a first set of commands, wherein each command included in the first set of commands specifies a type of action to be performed at a location of a 3D space within the 3D grid of voxels, wherein the first set of commands includes a first command for a new voxel to be added at a first location of a first 3D space within the 3D grid of voxels, wherein the first command specifies a voxel type for the new voxel comprising at least one of a type of building or a type of public space,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Please refer to the current Office action for the detailed analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101, Step 2A, Prong One. In particular, the claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely require evaluating/determining a design-level metric based on voxel-level metric information associated with particular voxel and determining recommended design changes, including an action, a location, and a voxel type, and formulating those determinations as a recommendation. The claim does not require any specialized computer functionality, computer-specific operation, or technological process that would prevent the limitation from being performed in the human mind.
Therefore, the claim limitation is directed to mental process, similar to the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
b. the claims do recite mathematical concepts
As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I), the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on selected information” are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a “process of organizing information through mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of “managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results” as an abstract idea). Further, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
The instant claims recite similar mathematical subject matter. Claim 1 explicitly recites: “computing a set of design-level metrics for the design model …” under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, recites a mathematical concept, including a mathematical calculation. In particular, the specification explains in paragraph [0228], “… an aggregation of the voxel-level performance metrics of the plurality of voxels to compute the design-level performance metric.” Paragraph [0230], “ … compute the design-level carbon footprint metric by summing the values of the voxel- level carbon footprint metrics for all the voxels of the particular design … compute the design-level daylight amount metric by averaging the values of the voxel-level daylight amount metric specified for the bottom X% (such as the bottom 20%) of the voxels of the particular design, whereby the voxels are ranked by the voxel-level daylight amount metric.” Accordingly, under the BRI in light of the specification, the claimed computing of a first design-level metric based on the plurality of voxel-level metrics encompasses performing mathematical calculations on the voxel-level metric values associated with particular voxel, such as aggregating, summing, or averaging voxel-level metric values to determine the design-level metric. Therefore, the limitation is directed to a mathematical concept, similar to the "mathematical concepts" grouping in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
2. The Claims Recite Limitations that Necessarily Integrate Any Purported Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Second, the amended claims recite limitations that necessarily integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In this regard, the Ex Parte Desjardins decision makes clear that "claims directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field are patent eligible." See Ex Parte Desjardins, Decision on Request for Rehearing at 7-8 (emphasis added). The rule articulated in Ex Parte Desjardins is consistent with the standard set forth in other Patent Office guidance. See Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at pp. 4-5 ("[i]n computer-related technologies, examiners can conclude that claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two by finding that a claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception .. . [t]his consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem"); and MPEP § 2106.04(d). Applicant submits that the amended claims meet this standard.
In that regard, the present Application makes clear that the claimed approach improves computer-aided design technology. See Application, paragraphs [0002], [0008] and [0337] - [0343]. The present Application further explains that the claimed approach enables rendering and optimization of a design model comprising an arrangement of voxels. The claimed approach imparts the technological improvement of rendering a design model as an arrangement of voxels in a 3D voxel grid to significantly reduce complexity and latency in the rendering of the design model. The claimed approach further imparts the technological improvement of optimizing performance metrics of a design model based on voxel-level metrics associated with the voxels in the design model to further reduce complexity and latency in the optimizing the design model. See Application, paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0014], and [0337] - [0343]. See Ex Parte Desjardins at 8-9 (where the Panel cites various advantages expressly described in the Specification to support patent eligibility); Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at p. 4 ("[t]he examiner is reminded to consult the specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field"); MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a).
In addition, the above improvements to technology are effectuated by the amended claims through the express steps of rendering a design model for display, wherein the design model comprises an arrangement of voxels in a 3D grid of voxels that includes a plurality of discrete 3D spaces, wherein each voxel in the arrangement of voxels is defined by a set of 3D coordinates that specify a particular location of a 3D space in the plurality of discrete 3D spaces that includes the voxel, computing a first design-level metric for the design model based on a first plurality of voxel-level metrics associated with the design model, wherein each voxel-level metric in the first plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel in the arrangement of voxels comprising the design model, and executing the first recommendation on the design model to generate a first optimized design solution comprising a modified design model that improves the first design-level metric. Accordingly, the amended claims are directly tied to the improvements to technology described in the present Application, thereby making the amended claims patent eligible. See Ex Parte Desjardins at 8-9 (finding that the claims at-issue are patent eligible because one or more claim limitations reflect the improvement described in the Specification); see also Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at pp. 4-5 ("[t]he examiner is reminded to . . . evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement"); MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Because the claimed approach improves technology, and because the limitations of the amended claims are specifically tied to those improvements, the amended claims necessarily integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application.
3. Conclusion
Because the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, and because the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application, Applicant submits that the amended claims and all claims dependent thereon are subject-matter eligible under the 2019 Guidance.
(see Response filed 06/02/2026 [pages 11-12]).
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").”
However, the additional limitations, “rendering the design model for display …” is merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of presenting information for display, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In particular, the limitation is recited at high level of generality and merely requires rendering a design model for display. The recitations of the arrangement of voxels, 3D grid, discrete 3D spaces, and 3D coordinates merely describe the content and organization of the design model information being displayed. The limitation does not recite an improvement in the functioning of the computer or in graphics or rendering technology, such as improved rendering performance, reduced rendering latency, or reduced computer resource usage. Rather, the limitation presents the voxel-based design model information for display. Although the specification describes reduced rendering latency and resource usage, it attributes those benefits to mapping visual properties associated with voxels to corresponding graphic elements. The claimed rendering limitation does not require those mapping operations or another operation that provides the disclosed rendering improvement. Thus, the limitation does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the additional limitations of the claims, “executing the first recommendation on the design model to generate a first optimized design solution comprising a modified design model that improves the first design-level metric,” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and the recited “improvement” is an improvement in the first design-level metric of the modified design model, rather than an improvement in the function of computer or another technology or technical field. The improvement in the design-level metric results from the previously identified abstract idea. The executing limitation merely applies a generic computing functionality with the abstract idea to obtain the recited improved design result. Thus, the limitation does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception or otherwise integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, Applicant’s reliance on Ex Parte Desjardins and the cited subject-matter eligibility memorandum is not persuasive. 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." Although the claim must be considered as a whole to determine whether it reflects the disclosed technological improvement, and improvement arising from the judicial exception itself does not constitute an improvement in technology. As discussed above, the asserted improvements or benefits from the 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 and executing steps). Therefore, the claim, when considered as whole, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong two.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
B. Federal Circuit Case Law:
The Federal Circuit has ruled in numerous cases that claims directed towards technological solutions to technological problems are not abstract under the two-step Alice/Mayo framework. Applicant submits that the amended claims are similarly directed towards a technological solution to a technological problem and, accordingly, are not abstract.
In that regard, the present Application makes clear that a technical problem that existed in the prior art prior to the development of the claimed approach was that conventional design applications utilized design models comprising complex continuous geometries. Use of such design models by conventional design applications required extensive storage and processing resources for rendering the design models and generating performance metrics for the design models, thus incurring significant latencies when rendering and optimizing the design models via the performance metrics. 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 grid of voxels that does not involve the storage and processor-intensive rendering operations associated with the continuous geometries utilized by conventional design models. As such, the claimed approach allows the design model to be rendered using fewer computing resources and with less latency. In addition, the claimed approach allows performance metrics of the design model to be efficiently generated for optimizing the design model using fewer computing resources and with less latency. See Application, paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0014], and [0337] - [0343]. Thus, among other things, the claimed approach solves the above technical problems that existed in the prior art.
Further, each of the amended independent claims recites the limitations of rendering a design model for display, wherein the design model comprises an arrangement of voxels in a 3D grid of voxels that includes a plurality of discrete 3D spaces, wherein each voxel in the arrangement of voxels is defined by a set of 3D coordinates that specify a particular location of a 3D space in the plurality of discrete 3D spaces that includes the voxel, computing a first design-level metric for the design model based on a first plurality of voxel-level metrics associated with the design model, wherein each voxel-level metric in the first plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel in the arrangement of voxels comprising the design model, and executing the first recommendation on the design model to generate a first optimized design solution comprising a modified design model that improves the first design-level metric. These limitations are specific to imparting the technological improvement of the claimed approach. See Application, paragraphs [0010], [0014], [0337], and [0342] - [0343].
Accordingly, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible under the legal rule set forth in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that recite specifically limited steps or elements that effect a technological improvement or useful result are not abstract), under the legal rule set forth in Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed towards a technological improvement are not abstract), the legal rule set forth in Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed towards an improvement in the functioning or operation of a computer or computer network are not abstract), and the legal rule set forth in Weisner v. Google LLC, No. 2021-2228 (Fed. Cir. 2022) and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed towards a technical solution to a technical problem necessarily recite more than an abstract idea).
C. Conclusion
In sum, the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application, and the amended claims are directed towards a technological solution to a technological problem. Therefore, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible under both the 2019 Guidance and controlling Federal Circuit case law. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
(see Response filed 06/02/2026 [pages 13-14]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner disagrees that “the claimed approach solves the above technical problem that existed in the prior art.” As discussed above, the claim merely recites the arrangement of voxels, 3D grid, discrete 3D spaces, and 3D coordinates merely describe the content and organization of the design model information being displayed. The claim merely applies processor or other generic computing components in their ordinary capacity to execute recommendation and generate optimized design solution. The claim does not recite any specific technical implementation, unconventional arrangement of computer components, particular voxel, coordinate and vertices generation technique, particular design solution generation technique.
The applicant also cited several cases; however, these cases are not applicable because each case involves claims that recited specific, technical improvements to computer functionality, data structures, memory architecture, user interface navigation, security mechanisms, or network operation. In contrast, the instant claims recite the identified judicial exception together with additional limitations that render the design-model information for display and apply the generated recommendation to obtain the recited design result. Accordingly, Applicant’s reliance on the cited cases does not alter the eligibility analysis.
In particular, the additional limitations of claims 1, 11 and 20, when considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitations of computer-implemented method for generating optimized design solutions for design model, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executed by one or more processors, and a system comprising a memory storing a design application and a processor executing the design application merely provide computer implementation for the claimed processes. The rendering limitation merely presents the design model information for display, and the executing limitation merely applies a generic computing functionality with the abstract idea to obtain the recited improved design result. In addition, the rendering voxel-based three-dimensional model for display is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer graphics activity. Wittenbrink (US20040179010A1) explains in Background, volume rendering was often used to visualize 3D data, that voxels were usually the fundamental data items used in volume rendering, that (x, y, z) coordinates mapped voxels to positions within a 3D model, and that various rendering techniques were in common use ([0002]-[0004]). Therefore, the additional limitations, when considered individually and in combination, do not add functionality that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception 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.
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims are directed to abstract ideas, are not integrated judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 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. Please refer to the detailed new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth below in the present Office action. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20, and claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 12, 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “… included in the second plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel included in the the modified design model” should read as “… included in the second plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel included in the modified design model.”
Claim 12 recites “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising computing …” should read as “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to compute …”
Claim 15 recites “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising: computing … included in the the modified design model; and re-computing …” should read as “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to compute … … included in the modified design model; re-compute …”
Claim 17 recites “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein each command in the first set of commands further specifies a voxel type, further comprising generating the first set of commands by varying the type of action, the location, and the voxel type specified by a given command” should read as “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein each command in the first set of commands further specifies a voxel type, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to generate the first set of commands by varying the type of action, the location, and the voxel type specified by a given command.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the term “… a particular voxel in the arrangement of voxels comprising the design model …” which is indefinite because the relationship between the design model and the arrangement of voxels is unclear. Earlier, claim 1 recites that “the design model comprise an arrangement of voxels in a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels …” indicating that the arrangement of voxels is included in the design model. However, the later recitation of “ … the arrangement of voxels comprising the design model …” can be read as indicating the arrangement of voxels comprises the design model. Therefore, it is unclear whether the design model comprises the arrangement of voxels or the arrangement of voxels comprises the design model. For the purpose of examination, “the arrangement of voxels comprising the design model” is interpreted as the arrangement of voxels that forms the design model. Examiner note: Even though “comprise” may mean “to include or consist of” and “to make up or constitute,” the two recitations create uncertainty as to the intended relationship between the design model and the arrangement of voxels. For clarity, Applicant is suggested to amend the claim to expressly state the intended relationship.
Claims 11 and 20 also recite “… comprising the design model … ” and are rejected for the same reason.
The remaining claims are dependent upon one of the claims listed above and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated
the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019, as well as subsequent USPTO eligibility guidance updates,
and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Yes, Claims 11-12 and 14-19 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and fall within the statutory category of article 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:
Mental Processes:
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Further, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A): In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and
• a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Further, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): 1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018) … 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 … 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699.
Claim 1: The limitations of “computing a first design-level metric for the design model based on a first plurality of voxel-level metrics associated with the design model, wherein each voxel-level metric in the first plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel in the arrangement of voxels comprising the design model,” as drafted, is process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
For example, a person is capable of observing a design model represented by an arrangement of voxels and the voxel-level metric values associated with particular voxels of the design model, evaluating those metric values, and mentally determining/evaluating an overall design-level metric for the design model based on the voxel-level metric values, such as by considering, combining, comparing, or otherwise assessing the values. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
Examiner note: the claimed limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely requires evaluating/determining a design-level metric based on voxel-level metric information associated with particular voxel. The claim does not require any specialized computer functionality, computer-specific operation, or technological process that would prevent the limitation from being performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1: The limitations of “generating a first recommendation that includes a first set of commands, wherein each command included in the first set of commands specifies a type of action to be performed at a location of a 3D space within the 3D grid of voxels, wherein the first set of commands includes a first command for a new voxel to be added at a first location of a first 3D space within the 3D grid of voxels, wherein the first command specifies a voxel type for the new voxel comprising at least one of a type of building or a type of public space,” as drafted, is process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
For example, a person is capable of observing and evaluating a design model represented by an arrangement of voxels in a 3D grid, identifying a location within the grid where a design change may be made, determining an action to be performed at the identified location, determining that a new voxel should be added at a first location, selecting a voxel type for the new voxel, such as a type of building or a type of public space, and formulating a recommendation that includes the determined design changes. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
Examiner note: the claimed limitation is recited at a high level of generality and merely requires determining recommended design changes, including an action, a location, and a voxel type, and formulating those determinations as a recommendation. The claim does not require any specialized computer functionality, computer-specific operation, or technological process that would prevent the limitation from being performed in the human mind. See 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.
In addition, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(II)(B): A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
Mathematical Concepts:
As explained in MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on selected information” are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a “process of organizing information through mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of “managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results” as an abstract idea).
Further, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A): “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
Further, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Claim 1: The limitations of “computing a first design-level metric for the design model based on a first plurality of voxel-level metrics associated with the design model, wherein each voxel-level metric in the first plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel in the arrangement of voxels comprising the design model,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, recites a mathematical concept, including a mathematical calculation. In particular, the specification explains in paragraph [0228], “… an aggregation of the voxel-level performance metrics of the plurality of voxels to compute the design-level performance metric.” Paragraph [0230], “ … compute the design-level carbon footprint metric by summing the values of the voxel- level carbon footprint metrics for all the voxels of the particular design … compute the design-level daylight amount metric by averaging the values of the voxel-level daylight amount metric specified for the bottom X% (such as the bottom 20%) of the voxels of the particular design, whereby the voxels are ranked by the voxel-level daylight amount metric.”. Accordingly, under the BRI in light of the specification, the claimed computing of a first design-level metric based on the plurality of voxel-level metrics encompasses performing mathematical calculations on the voxel-level metric values associated with particular voxel, such as aggregating, summing, or averaging voxel-level metric values to determine the design-level metric. Thus, the limitation recites a mathematical calculations and falls within the mathematical concepts grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(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 optimized design solutions for design models” 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 optimized design solutions for design models by performing the steps of:" and “A system for generating optimized design solutions for design models, 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:,” which are merely recitations of instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, which does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP $2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations of the claims, “rendering a design model for display, wherein the design model comprises an arrangement of voxels in a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels that includes a plurality of discrete 3D spaces, wherein each voxel in the arrangement of voxels is defined by a set of 3D coordinates that specify a particular location of a 3D space in the plurality of discrete 3D spaces that includes the voxel,” is merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of presenting information for display, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In particular, the limitation is recited at high level of generality and merely requires rendering a design model for display. The recitations of the arrangement of voxels, 3D grid, discrete 3D spaces, and 3D coordinates merely describe the content and organization of the design model information being displayed. The limitation does not recite an improvement in the functioning of the computer or in graphics or rendering technology, such as improved rendering performance, reduced rendering latency, or reduced computer resource usage. Thus, the limitation does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the additional limitations of the claims, “executing the first recommendation on the design model to generate a first optimized design solution comprising a modified design model that improves the first design-level metric,” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In particular, the limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and the recited “improvement” is an improvement in the first design-level metric of the modified design model, rather than an improvement in the function of computer or another technology or technical field. The improvement in the design-level metric results from the previously identified abstract idea. The executing limitation itself merely applies a generic computing functionality with the abstract idea to obtain the recited improved design result. Accordingly, the limitation does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception or otherwise integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquiries 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 to the judicial exception and an recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As explained in MPEP 2106.05(A), “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));
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).”
As explained in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …; ii. Performing repetitive calculations, …; iii. Electronic recordkeeping, … (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, …”
In particular, the additional limitations of claims 1, 11 and 20, when considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitations of computer-implemented method for generating optimized design solutions for design model, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executed by one or more processors, and a system comprising a memory storing a design application and a processor executing the design application merely provide computer implementation for the claimed processes. The rendering limitation merely presents the design model information for display, and the executing limitation merely applies a generic computing functionality with the abstract idea to obtain the recited improved design result. Therefore, the additional limitations, when considered individually and in combination, do not add functionality that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional limitation of “rendering of a voxel-based 3D model for display …” constitutes well-understood, routine, and conventional computer graphics activity. For example, Wittenbrink US20040179010A1 explains in Background, [0002] Volume rendering is often used in computer graphics applications where three-dimensional data need to be visualized. The volume data can be scans of physical or medical objects, or atmospheric, geophysical, or other scientific models where visualization of the data facilitates an understanding of the underlying real-world structures represented by the data. [0003] With volume rendering, the internal structure, as well as the external surface features of physical objects and models are visualized. Voxels are usually the fundamental data items used in volume rendering. A voxel is a data item that represents a particular three-dimensional portion of the object or model. The coordinates (x, y, z) of each voxel map the voxels to positions within the represented object or model. [0004] A voxel represents some particular intensity value of the object or model. For a given volume, intensity values can be physical parameters, such as, density, tissue type, elasticity, velocity, to name but a few. During rendering, the voxel values are converted to color and opacity (rgba) values, which can be projected onto a two-dimensional image plane for viewing. Distance ordering and opacity values are used to composite multiple voxel values that project onto the same image location (pixel), A number of different projection techniques are in common use, including ray tracing, splatting, and polygonal rendering.
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, 4-10, 12, and 14-19 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 and/or mathematical concepts, or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-19 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim 2 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising computing the first plurality of voxel-level metrics associated with the design model,”
The limitations merely further specifies that the voxel-level metrics associated with the design model are computed. Thus, it merely an extension of mental process and mathematical concept (e.g., identifying/computing voxel-level metrics). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 2 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the modified design model includes at least one voxel that is different than all of the voxels included in the design model.”
The limitation merely specifies that execution of the first recommendation results in a modified design model having at least one voxel different from the original design model. The limitation does not recite any particular technological manner by which the voxel is changed or the modified design model is generated, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 4 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
computing a second plurality of voxel-level metrics for the first optimized design solution comprising the modified design model, wherein each voxel-level metric included in the second plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel included in the the modified design model; and
re-computing the first design-level metric for the first optimized design solution comprising the modified design model based on the second plurality of voxel-level metrics.”
The limitations merely further specifies that second plurality of voxel-level metrics are computed for the modified design model and that the first design-level metric is re-computed based on the second plurality of voxel-level metrics. Thus, it is merely an extension of mental process and mathematical concept by performing additional evaluation and calculation of metric values for the modified design model. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 5 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first design-level metric comprises a user-selected design-level metric.”
The limitation merely specifies the first design-level metric is a user-selected design-level metric is computed refer to claim 1. Thus, it merely an extension of mental process (e.g., selecting a design-level metric for evaluation). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 6 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the design-level metric comprises a lowest performing design-level metric included in a set of design-level metrics associated with the design model.”
The limitation merely specifies that the design-level metric includes a lowest performing design-level metric included in a set of design-level metrics associate with the design model. Thus, it is merely an extension of mental process (e.g., comparing or ranking design-level metrics to identify a lowest performing metric). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 7 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising generating the first set of commands by varying, for a given command, both the type of action to be performed as well as the location within the 3D grid of voxels.”
The limitation merely specifies that the first set of commands is generated using different combinations of action types and locations within the 3D grid of voxels. Thus, it is merely an extension of mental process (e.g., selecting different action types and locations for an action). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 8 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first set of commands further includes a second command for a current voxel residing at a second location of a second 3D space within the 3D grid of voxels to be removed from the design model.”
The limitation merely specifies that the first set of commands includes a command specifying removal of a current voxel at a second location within the 3D grid of voxels. Thus, it is merely an extension of mental process (e.g., deciding that a voxel at a particular location should be removed). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 9 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the first recommendation comprises determining that a current persona is authorized to perform each command included in the first set of commands.”
The limitation merely specifies that generating the first recommendation includes determining whether the current role is authorized to perform each command in the first set of commands. Thus, it is merely an extension of mental process (e.g., determining whether the current role/persona is allowed to perform action). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 10 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The elements of claims 12 and 14-16 are substantially the same as those of claims 2 and 4-6. Therefore, the elements of claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 2 and 4-6.
Claim 17 recites “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein each command in the first set of commands further specifies a voxel type, further comprising generating the first set of commands by varying the type of action, the location, and the voxel type specified by a given command.”
The limitation merely specifies that the first set of commands is generated using different combination of action types, locations, and voxel types. Thus, it is merely an extension of mental process (e.g., selecting different action types, locations and voxel types for an action). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 17 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 18 recites “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein each command in the first set of commands further specifies a voxel type, and the first set of commands further includes a second command that specifies that a current voxel within the design model having a current voxel type is to be modified with a new voxel type.”
The limitation merely specifies that each command specifies a voxel type and that the first set of commands includes a command specifying modification of a current voxel from a current voxel type to a new voxel type. Thus, it is merely an extension of mental process (e.g., deciding to change a current voxel form one voxel type to another voxel type). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 18 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 19 recites “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein generating the first recommendation comprises determining that the first recommendation is valid for a current persona.”
The limitation merely specifies that generating the first recommendation includes determining whether the recommendation is valid for the current role. Thus, it is merely an extension of mental process (e.g., determining whether the recommendation is valid for the current role/persona). See 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, 2, 4, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Darmon (“Voxel computational morphogenesis in urban context : proposition and analysis of rules-based generative algorithms considering solar access,” published in 2018) in view of Benjamin US20190147116A1 and Greffen WO2021062113A1 and Penland US20200356350A1.
Claim 1, Darmon teaches A computer-implemented method for generating optimized design solutions for design models (Page.1, Abstract, “This paper presents the findings of a research study on the development of rules-based algorithmic methods for the design of solar envelopes and optimized shapes in urban context.” Page.4, Software prerequisite, “Rhinoceros 3D, Grasshopper and Ladybug tools … have been used for the development of the algorithms.” ), the method comprising:
rendering a design model for display, wherein the design model comprises an arrangement of voxels in a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels that includes a plurality of discrete 3D spaces, (Page.7, left column, “The [t1, ⋯ , tn] states represent the voxels center points defined by a 3D grid of points included both in the local town planning template … and in the Solar Envelope …”. Page.7, right column, “If all the conditions are True, a voxel is built at the location of the test point, and the next iteration can start.” Page.9, left column, “As such, the maximum volume before running the script is a 3D zone at the size of the plot, filled by 3m voxels over 12 floors.” Page.9, right column, “It is important to mention that the volume includes the expression of an architectural project: it is not the project itself, that is why the visualization of the resulting shapes is important in the design process to not constrain the designer in some predefined architecture. To do so, the algorithm has been set up to present three similar solar envelopes : the one composed by three-meter voxels, a smooth one and the last which is cut in terraces [Figure 17].” Examiner note: the three-meter voxels filling the 3D zone over multiple floors occupy separate voxel sized volumetric locations, which corresponds to the plurality of discrete 3D spaces);
computing a first design-level metric for the design model (Page.5, left and right column, “For additive methods, the following actions are realized at each iteration : e. Selection of the voxel center point n° 𝑖 f. Test for intersections between the solar rays from all the windows center points and the tested voxel, … The Next voxel center point 𝑖 + 1 is tested, and the above operations are repeated.” Page.6, left column, “The Figure 11 shows the number of intersections with the voxels for the “Boundary” method … some voxels are removed whereas they are only hit 1 to 4 times.” Page.7, right column, “At the end of the iterations, the user gets a scenario, which can be evaluated on : -Gross area -Building Ground Floor Area -Building Footprint -Average Sunlight hours on South, East, and West façade …” See also FIG.11 shows voxels categorized according to collision counts Examiner note: the reference teaches overall scenario level metrics, including gross area, building ground floor area, building footprint, and average sunlight hours, and voxel specific quantitative collision/intersection information determined for individual tested voxels. The same collision/intersection measure is applied successively to particular voxels, thereby providing voxel level metric values associated with respective voxels);
(Page.3, Start from scratch with voxels, “In block’hood, [Figure 5] each voxel has a given function (energy production, housing, park, factory etc.), and their aggregation allows the gamer to build a sustainable city.”); and
(Page.7, right column, “If all the conditions are True, a voxel is built at the location of the test point, and the next iteration can start. The general loop stops when the desired gross area is reached, or when there are no more points to test. At the end of the iterations, the user gets a scenario, which can be evaluated on : -Gross area -Building Ground Floor Area -Building Footprint -Average Sunlight hours on South, East, and West façade ...” Page.6, right column, “This second part follows on from the solar envelope design, by taking the precedent results as a maximum volume for the generation of optimized urban shapes. Other rules than the rules relative to direct solar access are implemented to match with habitability criteria.” Page.8, left column, “Four scenarios have been generated and compared. The Table 1 shows in red the parameters that have been modified in relation to the previous scenario. The better or the closer value to the desired one is written in blue …” See also Table 1, which reports output results for the generated scenarios, including Gross Area, BG, BF, Mean Sunlight hours Compactness, and Average sphere view factor. Examiner note: the reference teaches an iterative voxel-based generation process in which validated voxels are added at tested locations to form the resulting urban design scenario, thereby modifying the voxel-based design as the iterations proceed. The reference further teaches generating and comparing multiple urban design scenarios and identifies output metric values that are “better or closer” to desired values).
However, Darmon fails to teach, but Benjamin teaches computing a design metric for the design based on a plurality of metrics associated with the design ([0088] At step 1818, evaluation engine 210 generates a combined metric based on the solar metric, view metric, yard metric, variety metric, program metric, cost metric, and profit metric generated previously. The combined metric indicates the overall degree to which the candidate design achieves the design objectives 204. In one embodiment, the combined metric indicates a degree to which the design candidate 206 optimizes the objective functions specified within design objectives 204. In another embodiment, the combined metric is a weighted sum of the individually-generated metrics.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Darmon to incorporate the teachings of Benjamin, and apply Benjamin’s teaching of combining a plurality of individual design metrics to generate an overall combined metric, in order to provide an overall quantitative measure of the performance of Darmon’s generated design scenarios across multiple design criteria, thereby facilitating comparison of the generated scenarios and allowing high performing design solutions to be more readily identified and selected.
However, Darmon in view of Benjamin fails to teach, but Greffen teaches generating a first recommendation that includes a first set of commands, wherein each command included in the first set of commands specifies a type of action to be performed ([0027] … When the variance between the designer’s design and the predictive model crosses the variance threshold, the designer is notified of one or more recommended design changes and alternative options … [0038] Once a discrepancy, improvement, or alternative option is identified, the recommendation engine 145 … identify individual architectural element data object characteristics and functionalities that relate to the identified discrepancy, improvement, or alternative option … automatically implement the change by communicating the designer functionality call through the design compiler 130 … [0039] … the recommendation engine 140 may communicate a Change Dimensions command through the design compiler 130 to the Wall1 architectural element data object 200. The Change_Dimensions command comprises the desired dimensions for the wall … Examiner note: the reference teaches generating one or more recommended architectural design changes and implementing a recommended change through a corresponding design functionality call or command. The “Change Dimensions” command specifies the particular design action to be performed); executing the first recommendation on the design model to generate a first optimized design solution comprising a modified design model ([0016] … AI may provide recommendations related to improved architectural designs … Further, AI may be able to suggest and implement particular changes to an architectural design that improve upon the original human-provided design. [0044] The method 300 further includes based on the one or more inconsistencies, providing one or more recommendations to the graphical user interface suggesting an alternative digital architectural design data object to the user (act 308) … [0045] The method 300 further includes receiving user input selecting the alternative digital architectural design data object (act 310). For example, a user can select one or more recommendations to be applied. [0046] The method 300 further includes creating an updated digital architectural design data object by executing at least the alternative digital architectural design data object (act 312). This may include updating the architectural design data object 165.).
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 Darmon in view of Benjamin to incorporate the teachings of Greffen, and apply Greffen’s teaching of generating recommended design changes and implementing a recommended change through a corresponding design functionality call or command, and apply the selected recommendation to create an updated architectural design, in order to provide an actionable mechanism for communicating and carrying out design modifications identified during the design optimization process, thereby allowing the metric based design modifications to be implemented as recommended executable changes and to produce an updated, improved design solution.
However, Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen fails to teach, but Penland teaches each voxel in the arrangement of voxels is defined by a set of 3D coordinates that specify a particular location of a 3D space in the plurality of discrete 3D spaces that includes the voxel ([0352] At an information level, a three-dimensional matrix of the voxels may be developed having an array of cells, with one matrix entry (or cell) uniquely associated with one voxel and populated with information related to the associated voxel … with the cell location in the matrix defined by the grid address of the voxel with which the cell is associated … [0457] … The (X,Y,Z) address of the item representing the entity on the (X,Y,Z) grid (also known as the grid address) may operate as a pointer or vector pointing to the unique location of the associated item on the grid … Examiner note: the reference teaches a 3D matrix of voxels in which each voxel is uniquely associated with a matrix cell whose location is defined by the voxel’s grid address, and further identifies that grid address as an (x, y, z) address pointing to the unique location of the associated item on the 3D grid); each command included in the first set of commands specifies a type of action to be performed at a location of a 3D space within the 3D grid of voxels, wherein the first set of commands includes a first command for a new voxel to be added at a first location of a first 3D space within the 3D grid of voxels, wherein the first command specifies a voxel type for the new voxel ([0359] In addition, a developer may program each side of standard cubes with the common command “clickCube([X′, Y′, Z′]),” which is a look up call to records associated with a world grid to activate the entity modeled by the cube at the identified X, Y, Z address to perform a specific behavior. [0470] … addVoxel (myVoxel, [1,1,1]); // adds a new voxel of type “default” or “basic” at grid X, Y, Z : <1,1,1>) … Examiner note: the reference teaches commands directed to actions performed at specified location in a 3D grid. The reference further teaches an addVoxel command that adds a new voxel of a specified type at grid location);
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 Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen to incorporate the teachings of Penland, and apply Penland’s teaching of using X, Y, Z grid addresses to identify voxel locations and an Add Voxel command specifying both a voxel type and a grid location, in order to enable the recommended design modifications of Greffen to be implemented at a specific locations within the Darmon’s 3D voxel-based design model, thereby allowing a new voxel of a specified type to be added at a selected 3D grid location while maintaining the unique placement of voxels within the grid.
Claim 2, Darmon teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising computing the first plurality of voxel-level metrics associated with the design model (Page.5, left and right column, “For additive methods, the following actions are realized at each iteration : e. Selection of the voxel center point n° 𝑖 f. Test for intersections between the solar rays from all the windows center points and the tested voxel, … g. If more than 50% of the solar vectors per day collide with the voxel, the algorithm returns a False value. If not, it returns a True Value (one value per day) … The Next voxel center point 𝑖 + 1 is tested, and the above operations are repeated.” Page.6, left column, “The Figure 11 shows the number of intersections with the voxels for the “Boundary” method … some voxels are removed whereas they are only hit 1 to 4 times.” Examiner note: the reference teaches individually testing successive voxels and determining voxel specific intersection/collision information for each tested voxel, with the operation repeated for the next voxel. The reference further depicts the number of intersections associated with individual voxels. Thus, the voxel specific collision/intersection values correspond to plurality of voxel-level metrics computed associated with the design model).
Claim 4, Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen fails to teach, but Penland teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the modified design model includes at least one voxel that is different than all of the voxels included in the design model ([0351] … a voxel with components associated with it and a grid address assigned to it to a voxel-footprint-sized location on the grid that no other voxel may occupy until the newly created voxel is moved or deleted … [0465] … A programmer may clone an item from a first location on the grid and add the cloned item to another location (with the placement of the cloned item forcing a change in the grid address of the cloned item because no two items may share the same space on the grid) … Examiner note: the reference teaches adding a new voxel to a previously unoccupied voxel-sized grid location, wherein each voxel occupies a unique grid address and no two voxels may occupy the same grid location. Thus, the newly added voxel is different form every voxel previously included in the design model at least by virtue of its unique grid location).
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 Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen to incorporate the teachings of Penland, and apply Penland’s teaching of adding a new voxel at a voxel-sized grid location that is different from and unoccupied by the existing voxels, in order to maintain unique placement of voxels within the Darmon’s 3D grid and prevent different voxels from occupying the same grid location, thereby allowing the modified design model to include a newly added voxel that is spatially distinct from the voxels of the original design model while imprint stability and avoiding superimposition within the grid.
Claim 8, Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen fails to teach, but Penland teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising generating the first set of commands by varying, for a given command, both the type of action to be performed as well as the location within the 3D grid of voxels ([0474] For example, the first entity modeled by a first graphical item may carry a “click” functionality to run a selected component associated with another entity modeled by another graphical item at a selected grid address, for example, to change the length of grass at grid address (0,0,1). Upon a user clicking the first graphical item, the selected grid address is used to find the other graphical item, and the selected component is looked up and is instructed to start running. [0475] A developer may change the data specific to the click functionality; for example, he or she may change which component, which graphical item, or which grid address to invoke. If the graphical item associated with the selected component is moved on the grid, the developer may change the grid address of the graphical item … However, should the developer want to change the functionality of the selected component … the developer may access and alter the stored data and instructions of the selected component … Therefore … a click command may invoke a component to make a change to the length of the grass at grid address (0,0,1), without the length of the grass at grid address (0,0,2). See also [0353], [0355] and [0356]. Examiner note: the reference teaches a command functionality associated with a selected component at a selected grid address and the developer may change both the component/functionality invoked and the grid address at which the functionality is invoked. Under the BRI, changing the invoked functionality corresponds to varying the type of action to be performed, while changing the grid address corresponds to varying the location within the 3D grid of voxels. Thus, the reference teaches generating commands having different combinations of action type and grid location for a given command framework).
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 Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen to incorporate the teachings of Penland, and apply Penland’s teaching of varying, for a given command framework, both the functionality to be invoked and the grid address at which the functionality is performed, in order to allow the recommended design modification of Greffen to be flexibly implemented using different types of actions at different locations within Darmon’s 3D voxel-based design model, thereby enabling targeted modification of different portions of the design model through the same command framework.
Claim 9, Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen fails to teach, but Penland teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first set of commands further includes a second command for a current voxel residing at a second location of a second 3D space within the 3D grid of voxels to be removed from the design model ([0385] An example of how to remove a new graphical item (a voxel) in the described dynamic multi-dimensional visual programming environment is shown in the following exemplary pseudocode for a “Remove Voxel” command: //”Remove Voxel” Delete string-world [x][y][z]; … Scene.removeChild(voxel-world[x][y][z]); … [0386] When a voxel is removed, the records in VoxelWorld Database 318 of the grid address are updated to show that the location is now available for use by another cube. Using the deleted grid address as an address into the JSON database 322, the record of the software entity that the voxel modeled is also removed. Examine note: the reference teaches a Remove Voxel command directed to a voxel identified by it [x][y][z] grid address in a 3D voxel grid. Execution of the command removes the voxel and its correspond record from the model and makes the identified grid location available for another voxel).
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 Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen to incorporate the teachings of Penland, and apply Penland’s teaching of using a Remove Voxel command to remove an existing voxel identified by its X, Y, Z grid address, in order to enable the recommended design modifications of Greffen to include removal of an existing voxel at a specified location within Darmon’s 3D voxel-based design model, thereby providing greater flexibility in modifying the design model and making the removed voxel location available for subsequent use.
The elements of claims 11, 12, 14, and 20 are substantially the same as those of claims 1, 2, and 4. Therefore, the elements of claims 11, 12, 14, and 20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1, 2, and 4. Further, the additional limitations 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 …” and “A system for generating optimized design solutions for design models, 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 Darmon; Page.4, Software prerequisite, “Rhinoceros 3D, Grasshopper and Ladybug tools … have been used for the development of the algorithms. More precisely, the Sunpath component is used to generate sun vectors from the weather file and filter the visible ones, and the Sunlight Hour component is used to evaluate the quantity of direct sun on the façade after the recursive process is complete.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that executing the software tools and components requires a computer or computer readable instruction stored in computer memory or other non-transitory computer-readable storage and executed by one or more processors).
Claim 17, Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen fails to teach, but Penland teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein each command in the first set of commands further specifies a voxel type, further comprising generating the first set of commands by varying the type of action, the location, and the voxel type specified by a given command ([0353] the “Add Voxel” command: … Function add-voxel (xyz-vector, cube-type, string-data, facing, state) … [0355] …The properties that may be defined in the “Add Voxel” command, such as cube-type, value, facing, contact type—comprise a shortlist of properties that together define the attributes and functionality in the complete set of entity … [0356] The visual representation, … may be constructed and implemented directly using the “cube-type” property of the entity. [0475] A developer may change the data specific to the click functionality; for example, he or she may change which component, which graphical item, or which grid address to invoke. If the graphical item associated with the selected component is moved on the grid, the developer may change the grid address of the graphical item … However, should the developer want to change the functionality of the selected component … the developer may access and alter the stored data and instructions of the selected component … See also [0401]; Examiner note: the reference teaches command structures that specify a voxel/cube type and a 3D grid location, including an Add Voxel command having cube -type and x y z-vector parameters and a command record having type and x y z field. The reference further teaches changing the invoked functionality and the grid address. Thus, under BRI, the reference teaches generating commands using different combination of action type, grid location, and voxel type).
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 Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen to incorporate the teachings of Penland, and apply Penland’s teaching of varying, for a given command framework, the functionality to be invoked, the grid address at which the functionality is performed, and the voxel type specified by the command, in order to allow the recommended design modification of Greffen to be flexibly implemented using different types of actions, at different locations and with different voxel types within Darmon’s 3D voxel-based design model, thereby enabling targeted modification of different portions and voxel types of the design model through the same command framework.
Claim 19, Darmon in view of Benjamin fails to teach, but Greffen teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein generating the first recommendation comprises determining that the first recommendation is valid for a current persona ([0030] … designer segmentation would divide designers into segments dependent on their patterns and preferences. Similarly, design firms would be segmented dependent on the firms patterns and preferences. Thus, trained models can be used to provide recommendations that are specific to designers or design firms. [0051] … ranking can be based on a design firm that caused the characteristics, an individual designer that caused the characteristic, the role of designers (e.g., a team lead), etc. … A team lead, for example, may perform actions that causes recommendations 170 to be automatically provided to other designers as a result of inconsistencies between work done by the other designers and the trained model … Examiner note: the reference teaches generating recommendations that are specific to a particular designer or designer type based on the designer’s patterns and preference, and further teaches using the designer’s role, such as a team lead, in determining which recommendations are provided. Thus, under BRI, the reference teaches determining that a generated recommendation is applicable to, and valid for, the current user’s persona/role).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Darmon in view of Benjamin to incorporate the teachings of Greffen, and apply Greffen’s teaching of generating recommendations that are specific to a particular designer or designer type based on the designer’s patterns, preference, and role, in order to tailor the generated design recommendations to the current user so that the recommendations prese3nted are applicable to the user’s persona, thereby improving the relevance and usefulness of the design guidance provided during modification of the design model.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darmon in
view of Benjamin and Greffen and Penland as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Musuvathy US20150190971A1.
Claim 5, Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen and Penland fails to teach, but Musuvathy teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
computing a second plurality of voxel-level metrics for the first optimized design solution comprising the modified design model, wherein each voxel-level metric included in the second plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel included in the the modified design model; and
re-computing the first design-level metric for the first optimized design solution comprising the modified design model based on the second plurality of voxel-level metrics ([0049] A finite element analysis 158 is performed to determine displacements 164 and stress values 166. The finite element analysis 158 calculates the displacements 164 and stress values 166 at each voxel within the bounding box 162 according to the boundary conditions and loads applied. [0051] In step 720, the system updates the optimized lattice model … The level-set method 168 is used to update the lattice region … [0052] … If the volume requirement is not satisfied, the system returns to step 705 … [0039] … the finite element analysis results 545 indicate the displacements 550 on the simulated lattice 540 for each voxel 555 … FIG. 5D illustrates an optimal lattice simulation 515 … The finite element analysis results 545 indicate the displacements 550 of the voxels 555 for the simulated optimal lattice 560. [0033] … The physical objective 176 is tested for the boundary conditions applied to the initial lattice model 200 … The intermediate lattice model is then reset into the original rectangular grid with the additional lattice material 235 applied and the physical objective 176 is tested for the boundary conditions applied to an intermediate lattice model. Each iteration of the intermediate lattice models are retested … until the physical objective 176 is satisfied as the optimized lattice model 205. [0034] … optimizing the physical objective function, in this example corresponding to minimizing displacements 164 … Examiner note: the displacement value and/or stress values calculated at each voxel correspond to the voxel-level metrics associated with respective voxels. After the lattice model is updated, the process return to step 705 and again performs step 710, thereby recalculating the displacement/stress values at each voxel for the updated or modified lattice model. The reference further shows finite element analysis displacement values for the voxels of the simulated optimal lattice corresponds to second plurality of voxel-level metrics for the modified/optimized design model. Further, the physical objective function corresponds to the design-level metric. The reference states that the physical objective function may correspond to minimizing displacements, and further teaches retesting that same physical objective for each intermediate modified lattice model until the optimized lattice model is obtained. Thus, under BRI, retesting the physical objective based on the displacement after recalculating the each voxel displacement values correspond to re-computing the first design-level metric for the modified design based on the second plurality of voxel-level metrics).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen and Penland to incorporate the teachings of Musuvathy, and apply Musuvathy’s teaching of calculating performance values at individual voxels, updating the design model, and recalculating the voxel performance values and reevaluating the physical objective for the updated design, in order to evaluate the effect of each design modification on the performance of the modified voxel-based design and determine whether the modified design satisfies the desired engineering objective, thereby, facilitating iterative optimization of the design toward an improved design solution.
Claim 6, Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen and Penland fails to teach, but Musuvathy teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first design-level metric comprises a user-selected design-level metric ([0041] The user also specifies a physical objective 176 to be optimized, such as, a minimum structural compliance, any loads with their respective locations to be applied on the model, and a volume requirement for the optimized lattice 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 Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen and Penland to incorporate the teachings of Musuvathy, and apply Musuvathy’s teaching of allowing a user to select a physical objective to be optimized, in order to enable the design optimization to be directed toward a user selected engineering performance objective, thereby facilitating optimization of the design according to the performance objective selected by the user.
The elements of claims 15 and 16 are substantially the same as those of claims 5 and 6. Therefore, the elements of claims 15 and 16 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 5 and 6.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darmon in view
of Benjamin and Greffen and Penland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Özbayat (“Application of numerical optimization to the design of InP-based wavelength combiners,” published in 2014).
Claim 7, Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen and Penland fails to teach, but Özbayat teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first design-level metric comprises a lowest performing design-level metric included in a set of design-level metrics associated with the design model (Page.133, … where Pλ1 and Pλ2 are the transmittances from the 1st and 2nd input waveguide at wavelength λn and λ2, respectively. This choice of metric means we try to maximize the worst of the transmittance at two wavelengths.”).
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 Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen and Penland to incorporate the teachings of Özbayat, and apply Özbayat’s teaching of using the worst performing one of multiple design performance metrics as the optimization metric, in order to direct the design optimization toward improving the worst performing design criterion, thereby facilitating optimization of the design across multiple performance criteria.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darmon in view of
Benjamin and Greffen and Penland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hashmi US20190379672A1.
Claim 10, Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen and Penland fails to teach, but Hashmi teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the first recommendation comprises determining that a current persona is authorized to perform each command included in the first set of commands ([0026] The permission broker module 214 accesses permission repository 212 to obtain the permissions of the user, and compares the obtained permissions with the user's identity, the command to be executed, and the computing nodes on which to execute the command. The permission repository 212 maintains permissions for one or more users, where the permissions for each user identify what commands the user is authorized (or not authorized) to execute and on which computing nodes. [0032] … The permission broker module may determine, on a per-command and per-computing node basis … if the user is authorized to execute each command on each computing node. [0035] … the user command execution interface component and/or computing resource service … may define various roles that have associated access permissions, with each user associated with zero or more such roles … different group members are assigned different permissions with respect to particular commands or command types … identifications of user roles with associated permission information and information about which users are assigned which user roles … Examiner note: Under BRI, the current user’s role/profiles corresponds to the current persona because users associated with roles having corresponding access permissions. The permission broker module determining, on a per command basis, whether the user is authorized to execute each command, based on permission information associated with the user, which corresponds to the current persona is authorized to perform each 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 Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen and Penland to incorporate the teachings of Hashmi, and apply Hashmi’s teaching of determining, based on permissions associated with a current user or user role, whether the user is authorized to perform each command, in order to ensure that the commands included in the generated recommendation are authorized for the current persona and to prevent unauthorized commands from being performed, thereby providing access controlled execution of the recommended design modifications.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darmon in view of
Benjamin and Greffen and Penland as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Dysvik US 20150049085A1.
Claim 18, Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen fails to teach, but Penland teaches The one or
more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein each command in the first set of commands further specifies a voxel type, and (([0353] the “Add Voxel” command: … Function add-voxel (xyz-vector, cube-type, string-data, facing, state) … [0355] …The properties that may be defined in the “Add Voxel” command, such as cube-type, value, facing, contact type—comprise a shortlist of properties that together define the attributes and functionality in the complete set of entity … [0356] The visual representation, … may be constructed and implemented directly using the “cube-type” property of the entity. See also [0401]. Examiner note: the reference teaches command structures that specify the type of voxel/entity to which the command pertains, including an Add Voxel command having a cube-type parameter and a Click Cube command having a type field identifying a paper-cube. Thus, under BRI, the reference teaches the additional commands in the command set specify a voxel type).
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 Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen to incorporate the teachings of Penland, and apply Penland’s teaching of including a cube-type or type identifier in a command structure, in order to identify the voxel/entity type associated with the command and invoke the corresponding type specific functionality, thereby allowing the recommended design modifications of Greffen to be implemented using commands directed to appropriate voxel types within Darmon’s 3D voxel-based design model.
However, Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen and Penland fails to teach, but Dysvik teaches the first set of commands further includes a second command that specifies that a current voxel within the design model having a current voxel type is to be modified with a new voxel type ([0019] … The elements 202 may conceptually represent … three-dimensional voxels … A given domain 200 may thus generally include three types of elements 202: boundary elements 204, interior elements … and external elements … The term “non-boundary elements” refers generically to the latter two types of elements … [0028] the method 100 may then proceed to receiving an instruction to edit a portion of the mesh 300 … In general, the instruction received at 106 may result in connecting two portions, separating the mesh 300 along a slice line, or more simply expanding or contracting the surface ... [0031] … the discrete element 206(3) may be identified as being the voxel to edit. [0032] The method 100 may then proceed to editing … the element 206(3), which was a non-boundary element 206, may be changed to a boundary element 204 … Examiner note: the reference teaches receiving an instruction directed to editing an existing voxel in a voxel-based model, identifies the existing voxel as a non-boundary element type to the boundary element type. The reference identifies boundary, interior, and external/non-boundary elements as different types of discrete elements. Thus, under BRI, the reference teaches a command/instruction specifying that a current voxel having a current voxel type is to be modified with a new voxel type).
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 Darmon in view of Benjamin and Greffen and Penland to incorporate the teachings of Dysvik, and apply Dysvik’s teaching of receiving an edit instruction directed to an existing voxel and changing that voxel from a current element type to a different element type, in order to allow the recommended design modifications of Greffen, as implemented through the voxel-based command framework of Penland, to modify the type of an existing voxel within Darmon’s 3D voxel-based design model, thereby enabling targeted modifications of existing voxels while allowing the affected portion of the model to be recalculated and updated after the voxel-type change.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fitzmaurice (US20100106737A1) teaches a mechanism for recommended commands to a designer
of a graphics design application. Each time a command is executed within the graphics design application, a resource module receives command use information associated with the executed command. In response, the resource module generates and transmits one or more recommendation lists to the designer, where each recommendation list includes a list of recommended commands that may be executed by the designer next.
Sherstyuk (US20040049744A1) teaches a improved method of interactively determining values of design variables for engineering design. For example, in the realm of circuit design, the present invention relates to helping a designer obtain optimal circuits and providing the designer insight into the complicated interactions between circuit metrics (characteristics of the circuit of concern to the designer) and circuit design variables. These metric, design variable interactions will hereinafter be referred to as “the problem domain”.
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