Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/17/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 20 have been amended, no claim has been added or canceled. Thus claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
…
First, according to the 2019 Guidance, for a claim to be an abstract idea, the claim must recite limitations that incorporate mathematical concepts or constitute mental processes or certain methods or techniques of organizing human activity. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). Applicant submits that the amended claims do not recite any limitations falling within any of these enumerated groupings.
In that regard, the amended claims do not recite any methods or techniques for organizing human activities, such as fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or personal behaviors or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In addition, the amended claims do not recite any mathematical relations, formulas, or calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(1). In the rejections, however, the Examiner asserts that the limitations of "computing a set of design-level metrics for a design model that comprises a first three-dimensional 3D grid of voxels," recited in the independent claims, fall under the abstract group of mathematical concepts. See Office Action, page 5. Notably, though, the MPEP makes clear that in order for a claim to recite a mathematical concept, the claim must recite the mathematical concept itself and not merely recite limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(1). 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.
Furthermore, the amended claims are not directed towards mental processes. The Memorandum to technology centers 2100, 2600, and 3600 dated August 4, 2025, entitled Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C.101 (herein the "August Memo") "provides important reminders pertaining to the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO's) subject matter eligibility guidance," including "reliance on the mental process grouping of abstract ideas." The August Memo indicates that "[t]he mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." In that vein, the August Memo also states that "a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance, when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)."See also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Here, the amended claims recite the specific step of rendering the design model for display, wherein the design model comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels. This step quite clearly requires the use of a computing device and is not a step that can be performed in someone's mind or using pen/paper. In particular, a design model comprising a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels is computationally intensive and cannot be rendered for display without use of a computing device.
Because none of the limitations recited in the amended claims are directed towards any of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas, the amended claims cannot be properly interpreted as being abstract.
(see Response filed 12/17/2025 [pages 8-9]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagree that none of the limitations recited in the amended claims are directed towards any of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas, the amended claims cannot be properly interpreted as being abstract.
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 set of design-level metrics for 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 …, wherein the first set of commands includes a first command for a new voxel to be added at a first location …,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Please refer to the current Office action for the detailed analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101, Step 2A, Prong One.
The recited limitation “rendering the design model for display, wherein the design model comprises a three-dimensional (3D) voxel grid the design model comprises a three-dimensional (3D) voxel grid” merely describes the environment in which the abstract idea is performed and amounts to data output activity (rendering for displaying). The limitation does not change the nature of claimed generating recommendation steps, which remain directed to observing, evaluating and determining an action (including adding a new voxel at a location) to optimize a design model.
Therefore, the claim limitation is a “mental process”, similar to the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
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). The instant claims recite similar mathematical subject matter. Claim 1 explicitly recites: “computing a set of design-level metrics for the design model.” The instant specification defines the limitation as simpler calculation operations (e.g., [0159]).
Therefore, the limitation is directed to a mathematical concept, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2A, Prong One is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
Second, the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application.
In Ex Parte Desiardins, the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board explained that "[o]n the one hand, claims '[g]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use' are not patent eligible.... On the other, claims directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field are patent eligible." See Ex Parte Desiardins, Decision on Request for Rehearing at 7-8 (emphasis added); see also Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 4-5 ("[i]n computer-related technologies, examiners can conclude that claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two by finding that a claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception ... [t]his consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem"); MPEP § 2106.04(d) ("[l]imitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: [a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field"). Applicant submits that the amended claims meet this standard.
In that regard, the amended claims provide improvements to technology, rather than generally linking a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In particular, the claimed approach is directed towards the practical application of rendering and optimizing a design model comprising a 3D grid of voxels via design-level metrics and recommendations. See Application, paragraphs [0340] and [0342]. Through this practical application, the claimed approach imparts the technological improvement of rendering a design model as a 3D grid of voxels and optimizing the design model via design-level metrics and recommendations for improving the design-level metrics. Accordingly, with the disclosed techniques, the design model can be rendered and optimized with lower latency using fewer computing resources and can be improved through incremental optimization. See Application, paragraphs [0010], [0012], and [0014]; see also Ex Parte Desiardins at 8-9 (where the Panel cites various advantages expressly described in the Specification to support patent eligibility); Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 4 ("[t]he examiner is reminded to consult the specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field, and evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement").
In addition, these limitations place substantive and meaningful limits on the scope of the claims and similarly place substantive and meaningful limits on any purported abstract idea, thereby integrating any purported abstract idea into the practical application of generated computer-aided designs. See MPEP at § 2106.04(d) ("[a] claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception"); see also MPEP at § 2106.04(d)(I) citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that recite specifically limited steps or elements that effect a technological improvement or useful result are not abstract).
As the foregoing illustrates, any purported abstract idea recited in the amended claims is integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible.
Because the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, and because the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible under Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance.
(see Response filed 12/17/2025 [pages 9-11]).
In response to applicant's argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that “the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application.”
In order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” In other words, the specification should describe the claimed improvement over the background invention or existing technology, and the claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements (emphasis added) by specifying how the claimed improvement perform the additional element different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
However, the additional limitations, “rendering the design model for display, wherein the design model comprises a three-dimensional (3D) voxel grid,” is merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity as data output (i.e., data presentation), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Further, the additional limitations, “executing the first recommendation on the design model to generate a first optimized design solution comprising a second 3D grid of voxels that improves at least one design-level metric included in the set of design- level metrics,” 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. In particular, executing the recommendation to generate an updated or optimized design model recites the step of applying previously determined commands to obtain a result, without specifying any particular technical manner in which the execution is performed. Applying a computer component to perform generic data processing function to generate optimized or updated design model at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions. The recitation that the execution produces a “second 3D grid of voxels” or that at least one design-level metric is improved merely describes the intended result of applying the recommendation and does not reflect and improvement in computer technology or any other technical field. Therefore, the limitation is no more than an instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer and does not add significant more to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitations do not recite any specific improvement to voxel modeling, rendering algorithms, computer graphics, or computer functionality. Instead, the additional limitations merely specify that the abstract idea is performed in a particular graphical environment, and is executed via a generic computer functionality. Therefore, the rendering and executing limitations functions only as a generic display and data process mechanism for presenting the design model and executing the results of the abstract idea and do not meaning limit the judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f): “Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.” Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(a), II.: "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." The asserted improvements or benefits from the instant specification (e.g., the design model can be rendered with less latency using fewer computing resources and can be improved through incremental optimization …) do not reflect on the claimed additional limitations (rendering and executing steps), and the claim does not recite any specific rendering techniques, or hardware architectures that would achieve the asserted improvements.
Further, in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., the claims recited specific rules for animation automation that improved the technological process of automated lip synchronization by replacing subjective human judgement with particularized objective rules, thereby improving computer animation technology. In contrast, the claimed limitations merely recite generic computer functions (rendering and executing) without specifying any particular technical rules or processing techniques that improve computer functionality or any other technical field. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims remain directed to the abstract idea.
For Step 2B, the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to no more than applying computer components to perform well-understood, routine and conventional functions in the field of computer modeling, graphical display and data process functions, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B, and independent claims 1, 11 and 20, and dependent claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
The Federal Circuit has ruled in numerous cases that claims directed towards technological solutions to technological problems are not abstract under the two-step Alice test. Applicant submits that the amended claims are similarly directed towards a technological solution to a technological problem.
In that regard, the present Application makes clear that a technical problem that existed in the prior art prior to the development of the claimed approach was that conventional design applications utilized design models comprising complex continuous geometries. 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 during the rendering and optimizing of the design models via the performance metrics. Further, when optimizing a particular design model, conventional design applications are incapable of incremental optimization and perform "all or nothing" optimization, thus limiting user control and user involvement in the design optimization process. See Application, paragraphs [0003] - [0007]. The present Application also makes clear that one of the technical advantages of the claimed approach is that the claimed approach utilizes a design model comprising a 3D grid of voxels which 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 generated for optimizing the design model using fewer computing resources and with less latency. Further, the claimed approach enables incremental optimization of the design model via recommendations, thus providing greater user control and user involvement in the design optimization process relative to the conventional "all or nothing" approach to optimizing design models. See Application, paragraphs [0010], [0012], and [0014]. Thus, among other things, the claimed approach solves the above technical problems that existed in the prior art.
Accordingly, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible under the legal rule set forth in Finian, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that recite specifically limited steps or elements that effect a technological improvement or useful result are not abstract), under the legal rule set forth in Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed towards a technological improvement are not abstract), and the legal rule set forth in Weisner v. Google LLC, No. 2021-2228 (Fed. Cir. 2022) and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed towards a technical solution to a technical problem necessarily recite more than an abstract idea).
(see Response filed 12/17/2025 [pages 11-12]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner disagrees.
The cases cited by Applicant involves claims that recited specific, technical improvements to computer functionality, data structures, memory architecture, user interface navigation, security mechanisms, or network operation. In contrast, the instant claims do not recite any specific algorithm, non-conventional processing technique, and do not recite any specific technical mechanism, rendering technique, voxel processing method, or computer architecture that achieves the asserted benefits. Instead, the claims recite generic rendering and execution steps that merely present information within a graphical environment and performing data processing function via generic computer.
As explained in the MPEP 2106.05(b)(I), “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” Further, as explained in the MPEP 2106.05(b)(II), “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We are not persuaded by the appellant's argument that the claimed method is tied to a particular machine because it ‘would not be necessary or possible without the Internet.’ . . . Regardless of whether "the Internet" can be viewed as a machine, it is clear that the Internet cannot perform the fraud detection steps of the claimed method"). For example, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly").”
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims are directed to abstract ideas (mental process and mathematical concepts), and do not recite additional elements integrate judicial exception into a practical application, and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 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. The newly found references Dysvik (US20150049085A1) teaches amended limitation "a new voxel to be added at a first location within the 3D grid of voxels.” Therefore, the combination of Alkadri (“A Computational Workflow for Generating A Voxel-Based Design Approach Based on Subtractive Shading Envelopes and Attribute Information of Point Cloud Data”) in view of Berger (US20050154481A1) and Dysvik teach or suggest the amended limitations of claims 1, 11 and 20. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1-10 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Yes, Claims 11-19 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and falls within the statutory category of manufacture;
Yes, Claim 20 is directed to system and falls within the statutory category of machine.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “computing a set of design-level metrics for 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 …, wherein the first set of commands includes a first command for a new voxel to be added at a first location …,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating a design model, mentally computing or assessing design-level metrics for the design model, and considering potential improvements by determining actions at particular locations would improve an overall metric, then mentally generating or writing down steps or actions as commands, including a step or action that specifies adding a new voxel at a particular location, along with any other commands, to apply to the design model would improve at least one design-level metric (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). - Examiner note: the claim recitation of a “3D voxel grid” does not preclude performance of the claimed steps in the human mind. The claimed “3D grid of voxels” merely describes the environment in which the abstract idea is performed and does not change the nature of claimed generating recommendation steps, which remain directed to observing, evaluating and determining an action (including adding a new voxel at a location) to optimize a design model.
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 MPEP 2106.04(II)(B): A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
Claim 1, The limitation recites “computing a set of design-level metrics,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, can be reasonably considered to represent mathematical concept, specifically:
MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. 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).”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
Further, MPEP recites: “For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Claim 1: The limitations of “computing a set of design-level metrics for a design model.” The limitation with broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification that can be considered to represent mathematical concepts expressed in words to perform mathematical calculation descripted in the instance specification, for example, [0159], “… A performance metric can be derived from one or more performance properties via a simulation or simpler calculation operations based on the one or more performance properties.” [0160], “ … the daylight amount metric for a voxel in the voxel grid 700 can be computed via a simulation based on a distribution of one or more neighboring or nearby daylight-blocking voxels in the voxel grid 700.” [0161], “… the service access metric for a voxel in the voxel grid 700 can be computed as a weighted sum of the number of nearby service provider voxels in the voxel grid 700.” [0238], “… In particular, for each value of a particular design-level performance metric, the design problem builder 2510 can compute a minimum and maximum value range for the particular design-level performance metric and a percentage value that indicates a percentage position/level of the value within the value range. The design problem builder 2510 can then rank the design-level performance metrics according to the percentage values. In other embodiments, non-linear techniques are used to determine the ranking of the design-level performance metrics.” – 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 mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the additional limitations of the claims, “rendering a design model for display, wherein the design model comprises a first three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels,” is merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity as data output (i.e., data presentation), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do not recite any specific improvement to voxel modeling, rendering algorithms, computer graphics, or computer functionality. Instead, the additional limitations merely specify that the abstract idea is performed in a particular graphical environment. Therefore, the rendering limitations function only as a generic display mechanism for presenting the design model and do not meaning limit the judicial exception.
Further, the additional limitations of the claims, “executing the first recommendation on the design model to generate a first optimized design solution comprising a second 3D grid of voxels that improves at least one design-level metric included in the set of design-level metrics,” 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. In particular, executing the recommendation to generate an updated or optimized design model recites the step of applying previously determined commands to obtain a result, without specifying any particular technical manner in which the execution is performed. Applying a computer component to perform generic data processing function to generate optimized or updated design model at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions. The recitation that the execution produces a “second 3D grid of voxels” or that at least one design-level metric is improved merely describes the intended result of applying the recommendation and does not reflect and improvement in computer technology or any other technical field. Therefore, the limitation is no more than an instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer and does not add significant more to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 11 and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 11 and 20: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); …
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …; iii. Electronic recordkeeping, … (updating an activity log). iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,…
The additional limitations do not amount to an inventive concept because they recite well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities. In particular, the additional limitation “rendering ….” Including rendering a 3D representation such as a voxel grid, is a well-known and routine operation in computer graphics, CAD systems, and design visualization tools. The claim does not recite any unconventional rendering technique, specialized rendering algorithm, or improvement to how voxel models are rendered. Instead, the rendering step merely requires displaying the design model in a graphical environment, which is a conventional data presentation function routinely performed by generic display systems. Similarly, the additional limitation “executing…” includes applying previously generated commands to add, remove, or modify portions of a model to produce an updated or optimized version, is a routine and conventional activity in design software systems. The execution step recites applying known commands to obtain an updated model, without specifying any non-conventional control logic, execution mechanism, or technical improvement to how commands are processed. The recitation that execution produces a “second 3D grid of voxels” or “improves a design-level metric” merely reflects the expected result of apply design modifications and does not indicate an unconventional technical implementation. Therefore, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 11 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process and/or mathematical concepts, or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim 2 recites “computing a plurality of voxel-level metrics for the design model, wherein each voxel-level metric included in the plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel included in the first 3D grid of voxels.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating a design model, mentally computing or assessing a plurality of numerical values or qualitative measures (i.e., voxel-level metrics) to a specific voxel in the 3D grid of voxels to represent characteristics such as size, position, or structural contribution (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation with broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) can be considered to represent mathematical concepts expressed in words to perform mathematical calculation descripted in the instance specification, for example, [0160]-[0161] – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 2 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “the set of design-level metrics is computed based on the plurality of voxel-level metrics.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of aggregate or calculate the numerical values or qualitative measures to form an overall design-level metrics (e.g., by averaging the values of all voxels, summing contributions, or comparing voxel scores to produce a single overall measure of performance) for the design model (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation with broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) can be considered to represent mathematical concepts expressed in words to perform mathematical calculation descripted in the instance specification, for example, [0228]-[0231] – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 3 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “the second 3D grid of voxels that includes at least one voxel that is different than all of the voxels included in the first 3D grid of voxels.” The limitation merely specifies that the updated design model (i.e., the second 3D rid of voxels generated by executing the first recommendation) differs from the original grid by at least one voxel; therefore, it merely recites the result of applying the recommendation (mental process) via generic computer function to produce a changed grid (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 4 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “computing a plurality of voxel-level metrics for the first optimized design solution, wherein each voxel-level metric included in the plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel included in the second 3D grid of voxels; and computing a set of design-level metrics for the first optimized design solution based on the plurality of voxel-level metrics.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating an updated/optimized design model, mentally computing or assessing voxel-level metrics to a specific voxel, and mentally computing design-level metrics by aggregating or summarizing the voxel-level metrics to form an overall evaluation of the optimized design version (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation with broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification that can be considered to represent mathematical concepts expressed in words to perform mathematical calculation descripted in the instance specification, for example, [0253]-[0254] – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 5 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “the first optimized design solution improves a user-selected design-level metric.” The limitation merely specifies the first optimized design solution provide improvement is direct to a design-level metric selected by a user, but does not recite any additional technical details for how the improvement is achieved; therefore, it merely recites the intended result at a high level and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 6 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “the first optimized design solution improves a lowest performing design-level metric included in the set of design-level metrics.” The limitation merely specifies the first optimized design solution provide improvement is direct to a lowest performing design-level metric, but does not recite any additional technical details for how the improvement is achieved; therefore, it merely recites the intended result at a high level and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 7 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites “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 first 3D grid of voxels,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of mentally generating or writing down a list of alternative commands by varying both the action type and the voxel location, such as mentally considering different types of actions (e.g., Step 1: remove a voxel at the corner; Step 2: add a voxel in the center; Step 3: modify a voxel on the edge) at different position within the 3D grid of voxels (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 8 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites “the first set of commands further includes a second command for a current voxel residing at a second location within the first 3D grid of voxels to be removed from the first 3D grid of voxels,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating a design model, mentally generating a list of alternative commands, mentally apply a first command (e.g., step1: add) at first location and apply a second commands (e.g., step 2: remove) at second location within the 3D grid of voxels (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 9 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites “generating the first recommendation comprises determining that a current persona is authorized to perform each command included in the first set of commands.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of evaluating whether a particular role or persona (e.g., designer, planner, or engineer) is authorized to execute each command by mentally assessing permissions or rules (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 10 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The elements of claims 12-16 are substantially the same as those of claims 2-6. Therefore, the elements of claims 12-16 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 2-6.
Claim 17 recites “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.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating a design model, mentally generating or writing down a list of alternative commands by varying three factors : the action type (e.g., remove, add, modify), the location within the voxel grid, and the voxel type (e.g., cube, block, column), and thinking variations include: Step 1: remove a cube voxel at the corner; Step 2: add a column voxel in the center; Step 3: modify a block voxel on the edge (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 15 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 18 recites “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 first 3D grid of voxels having a current voxel type is to be modified with a new voxel type.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating a design model, mentally generating or writing down actions or commands including a command (i.e., second command) for replacing a specific voxel from one voxel type to another (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 18 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 19 recites “generating the first recommendation comprises determining that the first recommendation is valid for a current persona.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of mentally evaluating whether a proposed recommendation is valid for a particular role or persona (e.g., designer, planner, or engineer) such as the designer is permitted to add voxels, but the planner is permitted to remove them (i.e., recommendation is valid for the planner but not the designer )(The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 19 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and
103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set
forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-11, 14, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
“A Computational Workflow for Generating A Voxel-Based Design Approach Based on Subtractive Shading Envelopes and Attribute Information of Point Cloud Data” by Alkadri, published in 2020 in view of Berger US20050154481A1 and Dysvik US20150049085A1.
Claim 1, Alkadri teaches A computer-implemented method for generating optimized design solutions for design models (page.1, Abstract, “This study proposes a voxel-based design approach based on the subtractive mechanism of shading envelopes and attributes information of point cloud data … an integrated computational workflow between passive design strategy and 3D scanning technology is developed”; page.23, Conclusions, “… the proposed workflow specifically presents form generation based on subtractive shading envelopes and material properties of existing contexts that are used to generate a new method for self-shading envelopes …”), the method comprising:
rendering a design model for display, wherein the design model comprises a first three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels (Fig.11, Transformation of the dataset attributes (3D visualization on the right side). Page.19, “… the interoperability aspect plays a critical role not only to support the simulation analysis on the metadata information of the dataset (i.e., correction, truncation, and subsampling step), but also to help the visualization of geometric configuration based on the selected attributes.” Page.10, “… this procedure creates interoperability issues when the resulting dataset is matched and visualized to the initial 3D model in Rhino.”);
computing a set of design-level metrics for a design model (Page.19, “Before running the simulation, the subsampled datasets are evaluated based on the criteria of sun visibility and albedo values. These criteria identify relevant points that will be used for the voxels generation of shading envelopes.” Page.20, under 4.4. Step D, “The resulting datasets that successfully fulfill the predefined criteria in the previous step are used in the simulation by following a series of tasks … to generate volumetric shapes and three steps to simulate the ray-tracing analysis … The ray-tracing analysis (see part RTA-01) shows the intersection lines that occur between visible sun vectors, selected points of the existing site, and 3D polyhedra. The result of these intersections is then illustrated in voxels-01, which indicate a group of voxels that fulfill the criteria of receiving direct sun access.” – examiner note: computing performance-related metrics (e.g., sun visibility, albedo, intensity correction, material properties) on a 3D grid of voxels (polyhedral-based voxel grid));
generating a first recommendation that includes (page.5, para.2, “… ray-tracing analysis is performed from surrounding windows to the voxels within the 3D plot using a Boolean expression (true or false statement). In this operation, the true statement will be executed when sun vectors hit or intersect the 3D polyhedra, and accordingly, the voxels subtraction procedure to the 3D polyhedra can be performed.” Page.11, under 2.2.3. Step D, “… The ray-tracing analysis-01 generates intersecting rays that are then evaluated based on the predefined criteria of direct sun access. In this case, voxels that are not blocking sun access to the proposed buildings or are categorized as an unsuccessful intersection with the 3D polyhedra will be considered part of the shading voxels (refer to voxels-02 in Figure 5) ... These results in voxels-04 so that in total, three groups of voxels (i.e., voxels-02, voxels-03, and voxels-04) are generated .... ” – Examiner note: the reference teaches generating voxel-level action determinations based on Boolean ray-racing analysis, wherein individual voxels within a 3D voxel grid are classified and selectively subtracted, retained or combine based on predefined criteria (e.g., direct sun access and shading conditions). Therefore, voxel determinations specify actions to be performed at corresponding locations within the voxel grid),
executing the first recommendation on the design model to generate a first optimized design solution comprising a second 3D grid of voxels that improves at least one design-level metric included in the set of design-level metrics (Pages. 11-12, “This procedure principally applies a Boolean expression to assign true or false conditions on selected voxels within the 3D polyhedra array … voxels that are not blocking sun access … are categorized … voxels that receive sun access will be forwarded to a later step …” page.13, lines 4-9, “This simulation will evaluate the remaining voxels by maintaining the one that receives a shading condition while removing the unshaded voxels… The resulting voxels (refer to voxels-06) are then combined with the upper voxels to establish the geometric envelope for each data scan (refer to voxels-07 and voxels-08). After identifying self-shading voxels for each data scan, the final step is to combine all these voxels into a final geometric envelope that represents a final configuration of envelopes (refers to voxels-09).” – Examiner note: the reference teaches applying Boolean conditions to a 3D polyhedra array (i.e., a voxel grid), selectively maintain certain voxels while removing others based on performance criteria. The remaining voxel groups are subsequently combined into a unified voxel configuration (e.g., voxels-06 through voxels-09), forming a final geometric envelope. The final voxel configuration is structurally distinct from the initial voxel arrangement, is interpreted as a second 3D grid of voxels generated after execution of the recommendation).
However, Alkadri does not explicitly teach 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, wherein the first set of commands includes a first command for a new voxel to be added at a first location within the first 3D grid of voxels.
Berger teaches 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, wherein the first set of commands includes a first command for ([0010], “ … Virtual material may be added or subtracted from a model at any location by incrementally increasing or decreasing voxel values.” [0026], “The modification step may include adding and/or removing virtual material to/from the model. Adding virtual material may include modifying the array of voxel values representing the model to increase the volume encompassed by the 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 Alkadri to incorporate the teachings of Berger, and apply an apparatus and methods for automatically modifying a model of an object to comply with a manufacturing constraint for the production of the object in order to automatically add or remove material from an arbitrarily-shaped model of an object at any stage of the design process [0009]. In this case, Alkadri teaches generating design models include voxels and optimizing the models using related performance parameters. Berger teaches using specific instructions that direct whether material is to be added and/or removed for the design model. The combination of teachings would provide a structured and automatable mechanism for performing voxel-level design changes identified during performance analysis.
However, Alkadri and Berger fail to teach a new voxel to be added at a first location within the first 3D grid of voxels.
Dysvik teaches a new voxel to be added at a first location within the first 3D grid of voxels ([0006], “The mesh editing processes may include employing a voxel-based volume definition wrapped by a mesh. The voxels are defined in a volume grid, and the mesh may be generated from the voxels that define the edges of the object. To edit the mesh, one or more voxels are added to or subtracted from the volume, ...” [0019], “The elements 202 may conceptually represent two-dimensional pixels, three-dimensional voxels, or higher-dimensional elements, with it being appreciated that the method 100 may apply in contexts with any number of dimensions. The discrete elements 202 include boundary elements 204, which are shown hatched and may be located at the edges or “boundaries” of an object defined in the domain 200.” [0024], “the boundary elements 204 may each be associated with a non-zero value, while other discrete elements (e.g., internal voids or volumes, or representations of space outside of the object) may have a zero or NULL value.” [0031], “the discrete element 206(3) may be identified as being the voxel to edit.” [0032], “the element 206(3), which was a non-boundary element 206, may be changed to a boundary element 204, as shown in FIG. 5.” Examiner note: the reference teaches voxel editing in which a modeled object is represented by discrete voxels defined in a three-dimensional volume grid. Editing the model is performed by adding voxels from the volume, which corresponds to adding voxel at specific grid locations. Therefore, the operation of “One or more voxels are added from the volume” is interpreted as adding a new voxel at a selected location within the 3D grid of voxels).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alkadri and Berger to incorporate the teachings of Dysvik, and apply voxel addition operation in order to expand the range of permissible design modifications to include both voxel removal and voxel addition operations, thereby enabling automated and controlled addition of voxel elements at locations identified during performance evaluation. In this case, Alkadri teaches generating and evaluating design envelopes include voxel that using related performance metrics (e.g., solar access and shading conditions), and modifying voxel configurations based on Boolean evaluation results. Berger teaches using specific instructions that direct whether material is to be added or removed for the design model. Dysvik teaches editing a volumetric model represented by a 3D voxel grid, wherein one or more voxels can be added at selected grid locations during mesh editing operations. The combination of teachings would provide benefit of improving flexibility and controllability of design optimization.
Claim 4, Alkadri teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second 3D grid of voxels includes at least one voxel that is different than all of the voxels included in the first 3D grid of voxels (pages. 11-12, “This procedure principally applies a Boolean expression to assign true or false conditions on selected voxels within the 3D polyhedra array. The ray-tracing analysis-01 generates intersecting rays that are then evaluated based on the predefined criteria of direct sun access. In this case, voxels that are not blocking sun access to the proposed buildings or are categorized as an unsuccessful intersection with the 3D polyhedra will be considered part of the shading voxels (refer to voxels-02 in Figure 5). This workflow can also be called as a reverse solar envelope. Meanwhile, voxels that receive sun access will be forwarded to a later step in the second ray-tracing analysis (refer to voxels-01 in Figure 5). Furthermore, reference points are generated from the voxels-02 to be used in the simulation of ray-tracing analysis-02. As a follow-up to the previous procedure, the ray-tracing analysis-02 aims to maximize the geometric generation of shading voxels. In doing so, by changing the basis projection of initial reference points originated from surrounding buildings to the voxels-02 may compensate for geometric obstruction of polyhedra at a certain projection angle in the ray-tracing analysis-01. Instead of applying this procedure to the original 3D polyhedra, it is used to re-evaluate voxels-01 based on reference points of voxels-02 so as to identify additional voxels (refer to voxels-03) that fulfill the criteria of receiving shading condition. As for the input for material properties, a similar procedure of ray-tracing analysis is also performed by considering the lowest albedo values (ranging from 0 to 0.3) applied to surround contexts. These results in voxels-04 so that in total, three groups of voxels (i.e., voxels-02, voxels-03, and voxels-04) are generated to shade surrounding buildings. These voxels are then combined into one group, voxels-05. To ensure that a shading condition also applies to a proposed building, the self-shading workflow is performed in the following stage.” – examiner note: the optimized solution comprises a second 3D grid of voxels that contains at least one voxel (e.g., voxels-03 or voxels-04) that is different from the original voxels (voxels-01)).
Claim 6, Alkadri teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first optimized design solution improves a user-selected design-level metric (page.19, 4.3. Step C, “the subsampled datasets are evaluated based on the criteria of sun visibility and albedo values. These criteria identify relevant points that will be used for the voxels generation of shading envelopes.” Page.20, “The resulting datasets that successfully fulfill the predefined criteria in the previous step are used in the simulation by following a series of tasks illustrated in Figure 5. The outputs of these tasks are demonstrated in Figure 13. It consists of five steps to generate volumetric shapes and three steps to simulate the ray-tracing analysis. Beforehand, each data scan is divided into two parts in order to minimize the high computational cost during the simulation. According to Figure 13, some analysis can be further discussed as follows: The ray-tracing analysis (see part RTA-01) shows the intersection lines that occur between visible sun vectors, selected points of the existing site, and 3D polyhedra.” – Examiner note: performance metrics such as albedo values and sun visibility are chosen and applied to evaluate and optimize the voxel grids. A POSITA would understand that these constitute design-level metrics selected by the user or designer for the optimization process).
Claim 7, Alkadri teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first optimized design solution improves a lowest performing design-level metric included in the set of design-level metrics (page.11, “As for the input for material properties, a similar procedure of ray-tracing analysis is also performed by considering the lowest albedo values (ranging from 0 to 0.3) applied to surround contexts. These results in voxels-04 so that in total, three groups of voxels … are generated to shade surrounding buildings.” Page.22, line 3-4, “most of the reducing voxels are located on the edge of the 3D polyhedra or voxels that act as an exterior wall of the 3D polyhedral.” Examiner note: performance evaluation considers lowest albedo values (0-0.3) to identify areas of poor environmental performance, which are targeted for improvement in the voxel-level design. A POSITA would understand that this corresponds to improving a lowest performing design-level metric).
Claim 8, Alkadri fails to teach, but Berger teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further 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 first 3D grid of voxels ([0025] Modifying the model … may be initiated by a user command, … the modification being directed to various portions of the model, either automatically or via user command.” [0026] The modification step may include adding and/or removing virtual material … modifying the array of voxel values representing the model …” – Examiner note: different action types (add and remove). [0028], “… the modifying step includes modifying voxel values corresponding to each of a plurality of slices … The limit slice is adjusted according to (1) the previously-modified slice, and (2) an offset value, …” – Examiner note: different “slices” and “offset” as different locations in the voxel array).
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 Alkadri to incorporate the teachings of Berger, and apply an apparatus and methods for automatically modifying a model of an object to comply with a manufacturing constraint for the production of the object in order to automatically add or remove material from an arbitrarily-shaped model of an object at any stage of the design process [0009]. In this case, Alkadri teaches generating design models and optimizing the models using related performance parameters. Berger teaches using specific instructions as commands that specify different modification types (e.g., add and remove) and different voxel locations (e.g., slices and offsets). The combination of teachings provide a predictable way to implement the voxel adjustments identified during optimization, thereby allowing automated and repeatable modifications to be performed during the design model analysis.
Claim 9, Alkadri fails to teach, but Berger 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 within the first 3D grid of voxels to be removed from the first 3D grid of voxels [0026] The modification step may include adding and/or removing virtual material … modifying the array of voxel values representing the model …” [0028], “… the modifying step includes modifying voxel values corresponding to each of a plurality of slices … The limit slice is adjusted according to (1) the previously-modified slice, and (2) an offset value, …” – Examiner note: the reference teaches a modification step in which existing voxel values in a three-dimensional voxel array are removed as second command, correspond to a command that removes a current voxel from the voxel grid, and voxel modifications are applied at different slices and offsets within the voxel array, which correspond to different locations within the same three-dimensional grid of voxels).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alkadri to incorporate the teachings of Berger, and apply an apparatus and methods for automatically modifying a model of an object to comply with a manufacturing constraint for the production of the object in order to automatically add or remove material from an arbitrarily-shaped model of an object at any stage of the design process [0009]. In this case, Alkadri teaches generating design models and optimizing the models using related performance parameters. Berger teaches using specific instructions as commands that specify different modification types (e.g., remove) and different voxel locations (e.g., slices and offsets). The combination of teachings provide a predictable way to implement the voxel adjustments identified during optimization, thereby allowing automated and repeatable modifications to be performed during the design model analysis.
Claim 10, Alkadri teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the first recommendation (pages. 11-12, “This procedure principally applies a Boolean expression to assign true or false conditions on selected voxels within the 3D polyhedra array. The ray-tracing analysis-01 generates intersecting rays that are then evaluated based on the predefined criteria …” – note: i.e., as generating recommendation for design model) comprises
However, Alkadri fails to teach determining that a current persona is authorized to perform each command included in the first set of commands.
Berger teaches determining that a current persona is authorized to perform each command included in the first set of commands ([0027], “A user may be given an option of whether to add or to remove material in order to satisfy an imposed manufacturing constraint, … Therefore, in one embodiment, the modification step includes both adding virtual material to the model and removing virtual material from the model, …” – Examiner note: i.e., the system provides the current user/persona with an option (i.e., recommendation) to add or remove, which corresponds to the system determining that the current user being authorized to choose and execute 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 Alkadri to incorporate the teachings of Berger, and apply user authorization in order to make sure that command generated in the design model are executed only when confirmed by the current user/persona. In this case, Alkadri teaches generating recommendations for design models. Berger teaches that a user being authorized may be given an option (recommendation) to add or remove material. The combination teaches that when generating the recommendation, the system determines that the current persona is authorized to choose/execute each command, thereby preventing unauthorized command in the recommendation and make sure consistency with the persona’s permitted action.
The elements of claims 11, 14, 16 and 20 are substantially the same as those of claims 1, 4 and 6. Therefore, the elements of claims 11, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1, 4 and 6. Further, the additional limitation of claims 11 and 20, “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors …” 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 Berger ([0129] and [0131]) and Alkadri (computer based workflow).
Claim 19, Alkadri teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein generating the first recommendation (pages. 11-12, “This procedure principally applies a Boolean expression to assign true or false conditions on selected voxels within the 3D polyhedra array. The ray-tracing analysis-01 generates intersecting rays that are then evaluated based on the predefined criteria …” – note: i.e., as generating recommendation for design model) comprises
However, Alkadri fails to teach determining that the first recommendation is valid for a current persona.
Berger teaches determining that the first recommendation is valid for a current persona ([0027], “A user may be given an option of whether to add or to remove material in order to satisfy an imposed manufacturing constraint, … Therefore, in one embodiment, the modification step includes both adding virtual material to the model and removing virtual material from the model, …” – Examiner note: “option” is generated is interpreted as the system does not treat a recommendation as final unless the current user/persona confirms it, therefore, the option corresponds to determining that the recommendation is valid only for the persona that makes the choice).
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 Alkadri to incorporate the teachings of Berger, and apply user authorization/option in order to make sure that any design generated recommendation is considered valid only when accepted by the current persona. Alkadri teaches generating recommendations for design models. Berger teaches that a user is given an option of whether to add or remove material, meaning the system based on persona’s choice before finalizing a recommendation. The combination teaches that recommendation generated are validated only when confirmed by the current persona, thereby make sure that generating recommendations are not applied automatically but instead require persona provide further action to be valid.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Alkadri and Berger and Dysvik as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of “Product specification Subsurface model GeoTOP v1.3” by Stafleu, published in 2016.
Claim 2, Alkadri teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising computing a plurality of voxel-level metrics for the design model (page.1, abstract, “With the support of geometric and radiometric information stored in point cloud, such as position (XYZ), color (RGB), and reflection intensity (I), an integrated computational workflow between passive design strategy and 3D scanning technology is developed.” Page. 14, lines 5-6, “Geometric and radiometric properties within these attributes are used to identify material properties of the existing context and to conduct environmental performance analysis.” – examiner note: The “geometric and radiometric information” (XYZ position, color , reflection intensity) as multiple distinct measurable attributes of 3D spatial units in a point cloud, which correspond to a plurality of voxel-level metrics computed for the design model), wherein
However, Alkadri and Berger and Dysvik fail to teach each voxel-level metric included in the plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel included in the first 3D grid of voxels.
Stafleu teaches each voxel-level metric included in the plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel included in the first 3D grid of voxels (page.17, “The actual voxel model of the subsurface, each voxel measuring 100 x 100 x 0.5 m. Each voxel has a number of attributes, the geological unit, the lithological class and a number of attributes that are a measure of model uncertainty.” Page.27, 4.5.2 Voxel, “A voxel is a volume block in the subsurface that has uniform properties. A voxel has a location established by the (x, y, z) coordinates of the centre of the voxel, and a number of attributes.” Page.34, 5.4.2 Description, “Per voxel the following properties are displayed that are representative for the entire voxel: The geological unit to which the voxel belongs. … The most probable lithological class assigned to the voxel. The probability of occurrence of the lithological classes in each voxel.” – examiner note: each voxel carries multipole attributes/properties (i.e., a plurality of voxel-level metrics) and the properties are assigned to or representative for that 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 Alkadri and Berger and Dysvik to incorporate the teachings of Stafleu, and apply each voxel attributes such as the geological unit, the lithological class and a number of attributes that are a measure of model uncertainty in order to make sure that the computed metrics are associated with each voxel. In this case, Alkadri teaches computing geometric and radiometric properties as design metrics for the overall model. Stafleu teaches attributes includes coordinates, geological unit, lithological class are related to individual voxels in the 3D grid. The combination teaches each computed metric is associated with its corresponding voxel, thereby providing accurate representation of each voxel for subsequent analysis and improving the reliability of evaluating and comparing alternative design solutions.
Claim 3, Alkadri teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the set of design-level metrics (page.1, Abstract, “… the proposed method evaluates a volumetric sample of new buildings based on predefined shading performance criteria. Page.20, under 4.4. Step D, “The resulting datasets that successfully fulfill the predefined criteria in the previous step are used in the simulation by following a series of tasks … to generate volumetric shapes and three steps to simulate the ray-tracing analysis … The ray-tracing analysis (see part RTA-01) shows the intersection lines that occur between visible sun vectors, selected points of the existing site, and 3D polyhedra. The result of these intersections is then illustrated in voxels-01, which indicate a group of voxels that fulfill the criteria of receiving direct sun access.”)
However, Alkadri and Berger and Dysvik fail to teach metrics is computed based on the plurality of voxel-level metrics.
Stafleu teaches metrics is computed based on the plurality of voxel-level metrics (page.17, “… Each voxel has a number of attributes, the geological unit, the lithological class and a number of attributes that are a measure of model uncertainty.” Page.34, 5.4.2 Description, “Per voxel the following properties are displayed that are representative for the entire voxel: The geological unit to which the voxel belongs. … The most probable lithological class assigned to the voxel. The probability of occurrence of the lithological classes in each voxel.” Examiner note: a POSITA would understand that computing design-level metrics (e.g., shading performance) for a model, can be derived from voxel-level attributes where each voxel has multiple metrics associated with it).
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 Alkadri and Berger and Dysvik to incorporate the teachings of Stafleu, and apply voxel-level attributes such as the geological unit, the lithological class and uncertainty values in order to compute higher level design metric from the voxel-level data. In this case, Alkadri teaches computing design-level metrics (e.g., shading or geometry performance) using ray-racing analysis. Stafleu teaches each voxel has specific attributes as voxel-level metrics. The combination teaches design-level metrics can be derived from voxel-level metrics , thereby making sure that the design evaluation reflects the voxel data and improving the accuracy and reliability of comparing alternative design solutions.
Claim 5, Alkadri teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: computing a plurality of voxel-level metrics for the first optimized design solution, wherein (page.23, Conclusion, “The attribute information of point cloud data (i.e., XYZ, RGB, and reflection intensity) contributes not only to calculate material properties of existing context, but also to be a part of selection criteria for generating voxel-based subtractive shading envelopes.” Pages. 11-12, “These results in voxels-04 so that in total, three groups of voxels (i.e., voxels-02, voxels-03, and voxels-04) are generated to shade surrounding buildings. part of the shading voxels (refer to voxels-02 in Figure 5.” – note: i.e., second 3D grid of voxels); and computing a set of design-level metrics for the first optimized design solution based on the plurality of voxel-level metrics (page.23, Conclusions, “… the proposed workflow specifically presents form generation based on subtractive shading envelopes and material properties of existing contexts that are used to generate a new method for self-shading envelopes …”).
However, Alkadri and Berger and Dysvik fail to teach each voxel-level metric included in the plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel.
Stafleu teaches each voxel-level metric included in the plurality of voxel-level metrics is associated with a particular voxel (page.17, “The actual voxel model of the subsurface, each voxel measuring 100 x 100 x 0.5 m. Each voxel has a number of attributes, the geological unit, the lithological class and a number of attributes that are a measure of model uncertainty.” Page.27, 4.5.2 Voxel, “A voxel is a volume block in the subsurface that has uniform properties. A voxel has a location established by the (x, y, z) coordinates of the centre of the voxel, and a number of attributes.” Page.34, 5.4.2 Description, “Per voxel the following properties are displayed that are representative for the entire voxel: The geological unit to which the voxel belongs. … The most probable lithological class assigned to the voxel. The probability of occurrence of the lithological classes in each voxel.” – examiner note: each voxel carries multipole attributes/properties (i.e., a plurality of voxel-level metrics) and the properties are assigned to or representative for that 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 Alkadri and Berger and Dysvik to incorporate the teachings of Stafleu, and apply each voxel attributes such as the geological unit, the lithological class and uncertainty value in order to make sure the voxel-level metrics computed second 3D grid are properly associated with each voxel. In this case, Alkadri teaches computing voxel-level metrics (e.g., geometric and radiometric properties) for a second 3D grid of voxels. Stafleu teaches that metrics are related to individual voxels (coordinates and attributes). The combination teaches each computed metric is associated with a specific voxel in the second 3D grid, thereby providing accurate representation of each voxel for subsequent analysis and improve the reliability of evaluating and comparing alternative design solutions.
Claim 17, Alkadri fails to teach, but Berger teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein each command in the first set of commands ([0025] Modifying the model … may be initiated by a user command, … the modification being directed to various portions of the model, either automatically or via user command.” [0026] The modification step may include adding and/or removing virtual material … modifying the array of voxel values representing the model …” – Examiner note: different action types (add and remove). [0028], “… the modifying step includes modifying voxel values corresponding to each of a plurality of slices … The limit slice is adjusted according to (1) the previously-modified slice, and (2) an offset value, …” – Examiner note: different “slices” and “offset” as different locations in the voxel array).
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 Alkadri to incorporate the teachings of Berger, and apply an apparatus and methods for automatically modifying a model of an object to comply with a manufacturing constraint for the production of the object in order to automatically add or remove material from an arbitrarily-shaped model of an object at any stage of the design process [0009]. In this case, Alkadri teaches generating design models and optimizing the models using related performance parameters. Berger teaches using specific instructions as commands that specify different modification types (e.g., add and remove) and different voxel locations (e.g., slices and offsets). The combination of teachings provide a predictable way to implement the voxel adjustments identified during optimization, thereby allowing automated and repeatable modifications to be performed during the design model analysis.
However, Alkadri and Berger and Dysvik fail to teach a voxel type.
Stafleu teaches a voxel type (page.17, “… Each voxel has a number of attributes, the geological unit, the lithological class and a number of attributes that are a measure of model uncertainty.” – examiner note: i.e., voxel types distinguished by attributes such as geological unit, the lithological class and uncertainty values).
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 Alkadri and Berger and Dysvik to incorporate the teachings of Stafleu, and apply voxel classifications such as geological unit, lithological class, or uncertainty values in order to allow commands in the design model process to vary not only by action and location, but also by voxel type, thereby provide more accurate and flexible optimization of the design model. In this case, Alkadri teaches generating design models and optimizing the models using related performance parameters. Berger teaches using specific instructions as commands that specify different modification types (e.g., add and remove) and different voxel locations (e.g., slices and offsets). Stafleu teaches different types of voxels based on attributes such as geological or lithological classification. The combination of teachings provides the benefit of improving the precision of design modifications and the reliability of the model analysis.
Claim 18, Alkadri fails to teach, but Berger teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein each command in the first set of commands ([0025], “Modifying the model … may be initiated by a user command, … the modification being directed to various portions of the model, either automatically or via user command.”) further [0026] The modification step may include adding and/or removing virtual material … modifying the array of voxel values representing the model …” [0028], “… the modifying step includes modifying voxel values corresponding to each of a plurality of slices … The limit slice is adjusted according to (1) the previously-modified slice, and (2) an offset value, …” – Examiner note: the reference teaches a modification step in which existing voxel values in a three-dimensional voxel array are removed as second command, correspond to a command that removes a current voxel from the voxel grid, and voxel modifications are applied at different slices and offsets within the voxel array, which correspond to different locations within the same three-dimensional grid of voxels).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alkadri to incorporate the teachings of Berger, and apply an apparatus and methods for automatically modifying a model of an object to comply with a manufacturing constraint for the production of the object in order to automatically add or remove material from an arbitrarily-shaped model of an object at any stage of the design process [0009]. In this case, Alkadri teaches generating design models and optimizing the models using related performance parameters. Berger teaches using specific instructions as commands that specify different modification types (e.g., remove) and different voxel locations (e.g., slices and offsets). The combination of teachings provide a predictable way to implement the voxel adjustments identified during optimization, thereby allowing automated and repeatable modifications to be performed during the design model analysis.
However, Alkadri and Berger and Dysvik fail to teach commands involve voxel type.
Stafleu teaches a voxel type (page.17, “… Each voxel has a number of attributes, the geological unit, the lithological class and a number of attributes that are a measure of model uncertainty.” – examiner note: i.e., voxel with different 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 Alkadri and Berger and Dysvik to incorporate the teachings of Stafleu, and apply voxel classifications such as geological unit, lithological class, or uncertainty values in order to allow commands in the design model process to vary not only by action and location, but also by voxel type, thereby provide more accurate and flexible optimization of the design model. In this case, Alkadri teaches generating design models and optimizing the models using related performance parameters. Berger teaches using specific instructions as commands that specify different modification types (e.g., add and remove) and different voxel locations (e.g., slices and offsets). Stafleu teaches different types of voxels based on attributes such as geological or lithological classification. The combination of teachings provides the benefit of improving the precision of design modifications and the reliability of the model analysis.
The elements of claims 12, 13 and 15 are substantially the same as those of claims 2, 3 and 5. Therefore, the elements of claims 12, 13 and 15 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 2, 3 and 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nick. Cheneyet al., "Unshackling Evolution: Evolving Soft Robots with Multiple Materials and a Powerful Generative Encoding,” Conference: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, January 2013, discloses voxel grid designs, material assignment per voxel, performance of metrics and iterative optimization.
M. Gabrielet al., “Voxel based method for real-time calculation of urban shading studies,” Conference: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Symposium on Simulation for Architecture and Urban Design At: Virtual Event, USC, April. 2021 discloses a voxel based method for evaluating geometric tree models regarding annual solar radiation and shading.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI HAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187