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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 08/24/2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concept), without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER2011”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”).
Claims 2-12, 15-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Priority
The application claims priority to the European Patent Application EP21306139.3 filed on 08/24/2021. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/24/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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.
Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine whether the claims are directed to an ineligible judicial exception. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrased language, shown in italics, is used to simplify reference. Claims with similar limitations, although not verbatim identical, that share the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps Step 1 (S1) and Steps 2 Prongs A1, A2 and B (S2A1, S2A2, S2B) are grouped. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of each group. An additional analysis is performed if any claims in the group includes additional limitations.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-20 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claims 1-12, 15-20 directed to a method), machine (claim 14 directed to a computer system) and manufacture (claim 13 directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium).
(S2A1)
Claim 1, representative for claims 13, 14, recites (with bold highlighting the abstract idea) a method for automatically furnishing a 3D room based on user preferences, comprising
a) obtaining: at least one spatial relations graph of a virtual 3D room having 3D elements, based on spatial relations between the 3D elements of the virtual 3D room, said 3D elements including 3D architectural elements and 3D furnishing objects located in a furnished virtual 3D room, and
a set of user preferences related to the furnishing of the 3D room; (additional elements, data gathering, adding insignificant extra-solution to activity to the judicial exception; see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g))
b) converting the set of user preferences into a set of target parameters, each target parameter being assigned to a respective KPI, said KPI corresponding to a measure concerning the furnishing of the 3D room; (conversion that can be performed in the mind, or using pen and paper)
c) computing, for each spatial relations graph: a set of Key Performance Indicator values, based on the spatial relations graph and based either on the corresponding target parameter or on a dataset which maps spatial relations graphs to Key Performance Indicator values with respect to each target parameter, and a KPI distance, which corresponds to an aggregation of all the KPI values; (computing that can be performed in the mind, or using pen and paper; it also uses mathematical concepts, for example the distance)
d) automatically selecting at least one most promising spatial relations graph, said most promising spatial relations graph being the spatial relations graph having the lowest KPI distance; (can be performed in the mind, evaluating a most promising, and making the selection decision; lowest KPI distance also involves a mathematical concept)
e) instantiating the most promising spatial relations graph into the 3D room to be furnished with the 3D furnishing objects of the most promising spatial relations graph, thereby providing a furnished virtual 3D room proposal; (“apply it”)
f) displaying the furnished virtual 3D room proposal to the user; (data outputting/manipulation)
g) receiving an update of the user preferences; and (more data gathering)
h) reiterating steps a) to g) until a stopping criterion is fulfilled. (this limitation combines steps that are abstract, (b-d) with additional elements- until a condition Is fulfilled, condition that can be evaluated in the mind.
Thus, the limitations of claims 1, 13, 14 recite abstract ideas. In broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) and in view of the application specification as well as the guidance from MPEP 2106.04 II. B, the limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis, as a process aimed at: “determine an optimal furniture arrangement by selecting the most promising graph of room elements based on an iterative converging process of applying general arrangement rules and expressed user preferences” .
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement and decision-making. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III and Mathematical Concept (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I) ).
Regarding the claim element “automatically”, the courts do not 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) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
Accordingly, claims 1, 13, 14 recite an abstract idea.
(S2A2) The additional claim elements are data gathering (a) and ‘apply it’ (e ) (data manipulation, data outputting (f). The additional elements, taken individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application when evaluated using the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) because these do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea., nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. According, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
(S2B) Claims 1, 13, 14 do not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements recite data gathering, recited generically, an insignificant extra solution activity, elements that amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. For situations substantially similar to those here, these additional elements, including data gathering, data manipulation, and data transmission, recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)).
When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to data gathering, data manipulation, and instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea “determine an optimal furniture arrangement by selecting the most promising graph of room elements based on an iterative converging process of applying general arrangement rules and expressed user preferences, could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claims 1, 13, 14. are ineligible.
Claim 2 (dependent on claim 1) further recites
wherein, in step b), the target parameter is computed with formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
19
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Proposalkpiparam corresponds to a target parameter at a preceding iteration or a standard value for a first iteration of the method;
PNG
media_image2.png
29
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Skpi_param is a constant evolution rate; Nkpi is a number of user preferences impacting the Key Performance Indicator; wp is a weight of the user preference, provided by the user; and Wkpiparam is the weight of the user preference on the Key Performance Indicator.
The parent claim is directed to an abstract idea, while the further limitation in the dependent claim recites a Mathematical Concept (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I) ) and has no additional elements except those clarifying the meaning of the terms in the formula, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea., nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim remains directed to a judicial exception, the abstract idea of the parent claim, further refined by the mathematical concept. Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3 (dependent on claim 1) further recites
approximating each Key Performance Indicator value with an a priori Key Performance Indicator value; and computing a confidence coefficient for each Key Performance Indicator
value, wherein, in the KPI distance, each a priori Key Performance Indicator value is weighted by its corresponding confidence coefficient.
These limitations recite mental processes and mathematical concepts (approximating, computing, weighted), a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement and decision-making. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III and Mathematical Concept (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I) ).
The claim has no additional elements to provide ‘significantly more’. Thus, the claim remains directed to a judicial exception. Therefore, claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4 dependent on claim 1 further recites
PNG
media_image3.png
277
532
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The claim recites further mental processes and mathematical concepts, at most with the modification of the 3D object. The weighted sum could be computer mentally or with pen and paper, it recites a mathematical formula and also refers to function minimization which is a mathematical concept. It has no additional elements except those related to the modification of the 3D furnishing object in the 3D virtual room proposal, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea., nor does it effect an improvement to any technology or technical field, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim remains directed to a judicial exception, the abstract idea of the parent claim, further refined by the mental process/mathematical concept recited by the claim. Therefore, claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5 (dependent on claim 4) further recites
wherein step e') is completed when a certain number of optimization iterations have been executed and/or the global cost function is below a certain threshold, when there is no overlapping between the 3D furnishing objects in the room.
Comparing with a threshold recites a mathematical concept, overlapping between objects also recites a mathematical concept (geometry or simple comparison of coordinates). Determining completion is also a mental process related to an evaluation, assessment, decision. There are no additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Similar to reasoning of claim 3, the claim remains directed to a judicial exception and is therefore ineligible.
Claim 6 (dependent on claim 1) further recites
herein, the at least one spatial relations graph is directed and each node is connected to another node by an incoming relation or by an outgoing relation, and step e) comprises sub-steps of: ordering nodes of the 3D furnishing objects by a number of incoming relations they have, then descending by a number of outgoing relations and finally by their size; and for each node of a 3D furnishing object, according to a descending order: computing a valid subspace area, which is an area of the 3D room where the 3D furnishing object corresponding to the node can be instantiated, based on constraints of the 3D room; and instantiating the 3D furnishing object in the middle of the valid subspace area.
The parent claim is directed to an abstract idea, while claim limitations recite further mental processes and mathematical concepts (ordering, computing). The additional elements are simply ‘apply it’ and do not provide significantly more. Thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception and is therefore ineligible.
Claim 7 (1) further recites
wherein step e') comprises one of the following operations, for at least one 3D furnishing object of the most promising spatial relations graph: displacement of the 3D furnishing object inside a valid subspace area; detection of a category of the 3D furnishing object corresponding to its function in the 3D room, and replacement of the 3D furnishing object by another 3D furnishing object of the same category, or replacement of the 3D furnishing object based on a list of substitute objects or based on data which are considered as optional attributes in the most promising spatial relations graph (MPGR); and deletion of the 3D furnishing object.
The parent claim is directed to an abstract idea, while claim limitations recite further mental processes. The additional elements are simply data manipulation, and do not provide significantly more. Thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception and is therefore ineligible.
Claim 8 (1) further recites
wherein the user preferences comprise a weighted set of parameters, said weighted set of parameters comprising at least one among the following group: brightness, including a luminosity level the user wants for the 3D room; accessibility, including a level of accessibility of 3D furnishing objects in the 3D room; occupancy, including a rate of space occupancy wanted in the 3D room; and regularity, including a harmony of repartition and alignment of the 3D furnishing objects inside the 3D room.
The additional elements of the claim only provide additional clarifications to elements of parent claim; there are no method steps or anything that would prevent the execution of the abstract idea Thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception and is therefore ineligible.
Claim 9 (1) further recites
further comprising computing a Graph Edit Distance between the most promising spatial relations graph and each of the at least one spatial relations graph, wherein the set of users preferences includes a satisfaction criterion, the most promising spatial relations graph being selected, for a next iteration, as a function of the Graph Edit Distance.
The parent claim is directed to an abstract idea, while claim limitations recite further mental processes / mathematical concept of computing a distance. The additional elements do not provide significantly more and only provide additional clarifications to elements in prior limitations Thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception and is therefore ineligible.
Claim 10 (1) further recites
wherein the dataset which maps spatial relations graph to Key Performance Indicator values is obtained by way of a machine-learning model which takes as input a graph and outputs a value for each KPIs values considered.
The additional elements of the claim do not provide significantly more and only provide additional clarifications to elements of parent claim; there are no method steps or anything that would prevent the execution of the abstract idea. Thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception and is therefore ineligible.
Claim 11 (1), 12(1) further recite
(11) wherein, in step f), the set of Key Performance Indicator values is displayed along with the furnished virtual 3D room proposal.
(!2) wherein the user preferences are updated by the user by way of sliders, each slider corresponding to a user preference.
These additional elements only provide additional details to elements of parent claim; there is nothing significantly more that would change from the claim being directed to an abstract idea. Thus the claims 11 and 12 are directed to a judicial exception and therefore ineligible.
Claim 15 (2) further recites
further comprising: approximating each Key Performance Indicator value with an a priori Key Performance Indicator value; and computing a confidence coefficient for each Key Performance Indicator value, wherein, in the KPI distance, each a priori Key Performance Indicator value is weighted by its corresponding confidence coefficient.
Approximating, computing, weighting are processes that can be performed in the mind or pen and paper. There are no additional elements to provide significantly more. Therefore the claim remains directed to a judicial exception and is therefore ineligible.
Claims 16 (2), 17 (2) recite the same limitations, that is
further comprising, between steps e) and f), a step e') of: computing a global cost function, the global cost function being defined by the relation:
PNG
media_image4.png
77
375
media_image4.png
Greyscale
with gkpi_parami the Key Performance Indicator value, and tkpi_param_i the target parameter for the KPI, and Nkpi_param a number of Key Performance Indicators; and applying at least one iteration of a modification of a 3D furnishing object in the furnished virtual 3D room proposal to minimize the global cost function.
The limitations are the same as for claim 4, and the analysis is similar. The limitations recite mental process and mathematical concepts, no additional elements, and remain directed to the judicial exception as the parent claim. Thus the claims are ineligible.
Claim 18 (2), 19(3), 20(4) further recite
wherein, the at least one spatial relations graph is directed and each node is connected to another node by an incoming relation or by an outgoing relation, step e) comprises sub-steps of: ordering nodes of the 3D furnishing objects by the number of incoming relations they have, then descending by the number of outgoing relations and finally by their size; and for each node of a 3D furnishing object, according to a descending order: computing a valid subspace area, which is an area of the 3D room where the 3D furnishing object corresponding to the node can be instantiated, based on constraints of the 3D room; and instantiating the 3D furnishing object in the middle of the valid subspace area.
Similar to claim 6 (depending on claim 1) the limitations of claims 18, 19, 20 recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. The analysis is similar to that of claim 1, and the additional elements and individual additional elements in respective parent claims do not provide significantly more, and thus remain directed to a judicial exception, and the therefore are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claims 1,4, 8, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”).
Regarding Claim 1,13, 14 MER discloses
a) obtaining: at least one spatial relations graph of a virtual 3D room having 3D elements, based on spatial relations between the 3D elements of the virtual 3D room, said 3D elements including 3D architectural elements and 3D furnishing objects located in a furnished virtual 3D room, and a set of user preferences related to the furnishing of the 3D room; { MER [p2 right col, 2. Furniture Layout Guidelines] Formally we represent a furniture layout as a tuple I = (F;R; G), where F is the collection of furniture items placed in the room, R is a polygon delineating the boundaries of the room, and G _ 2F is a collection of groups of furniture pieces. [p1] the system suggests a small set of furniture layouts that follow the interior design guidelines. The user can interactively select a suggestion and move any piece of furniture to modify the layout. Thus, the user and computer work together to iteratively evolve the design (Figure 1); Figure 1: Interactive furniture layout.} In BRI the is spatial relation graph is interpreted as the tuple I = (F;R; G); the set of preferences interpreted as selection of suggestions and moving of pieces.
c) computing, for each spatial relations graph: a set of Key Performance Indicator values, based on the spatial relations graph and based either on the corresponding target parameter or on a dataset which maps spatial relations graphs to Key Performance Indicator values with respect to each target parameter, and a KPI distance, which corresponds to an aggregation of all the KPI values;
d) automatically selecting at least one most promising spatial relations graph, said most promising spatial relations graph being the spatial relations graph having the lowest KPI distance;
{ Merrell2011:[p2 right col, 2. Furniture Layout Guidelines] Formally we represent a furniture layout as a tuple I = (F;R; G), where F is the collection of furniture items placed in the room, R is a polygon delineating the boundaries of the room, and G _ 2F is a collection of groups of furniture pieces.
[ p 4 top]
PNG
media_image5.png
283
965
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Section 2.1. and 2.2.; Clearance, Circulation, …Alignment
PNG
media_image6.png
185
478
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[ 3. Generating Suggestions]
PNG
media_image7.png
325
481
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In BRI, the spatial relations graph interpreted as the tuple, target parameters as interior design guidelines (circulation, alignment etc); KPI values as the specific calculated term for example m_fa in Alignment defined as equation above; the KPI distance corresponding to an aggregation of al the KPI values interpreted as the cost function that aggregates the objective terms in Section 2; automatically selecting at least one most promising spatial relations graph, said most promising spatial relations graph being the spatial relations graph having the lowest KPI distance, interpreted as minimization of the furniture arrangement F with minimal cost function.
e) instantiating the most promising spatial relations graph into the 3D room to be furnished with the 3D furnishing objects of the most promising spatial relations graph, thereby providing a furnished virtual 3D room proposal; { [Section 4 Results] In response to a suggestion generation query, the interface chooses the top 36 suggestions returned by the sampler and presents them
in groups of 3, as shown in Figure 1.
PNG
media_image8.png
274
979
media_image8.png
Greyscale
f) displaying the furnished virtual 3D room proposal to the user; g) receiving an update of the user preferences; and h) reiterating steps a) to g) until a stopping criterion is fulfilled. { Merrell [p1] the system suggests a small set of furniture layouts that follow the interior design guidelines. The user can interactively select a suggestion and move any piece of furniture to modify the layout. Thus,
the user and computer work together to iteratively evolve the design (Figure 1); Figure 1: Interactive furniture layout.[p5, right col, top] The algorithm iterates until its computational budget is
exhausted.} stopping criterion is running out of computational budget.
MER does not teach, however BEN teaches
b) converting the set of user preferences into a set of target parameters, each target parameter being assigned to a respective KPI, said KPI corresponding to a measure concerning the furnishing of the 3D room; {Benjamin: [0038] Preferential parameters do not require mandatory implementation. … Placement parameters 214 may be based on individuals and/or groups … Placement parameters 214 can applied to approximations of real physical spaces, floorplan 210, spatial units list 212, layout 230, transformed spatial units 250, packed layout 270, layout generation engine 118, and/or one or more modules of layout generation engine 118. Placement parameters 214 may be manually commanded or modified by the user at or prior to execution of layout generation engine. Placement parameters 214 may include the following exemplary parameters: [0039] a. Physical space purpose parameter: [0044] f. Adjacency parameter: … [0045] g. Proximity parameter: … [0046] h. Distance parameter: … [0047] i. Separation parameter: [0049] k. Circulation parameter: [0050] prompts the user to provide the placement order or a criteria for placement order; [0021] devices 108 may be configured to receive various types of input from an end-user}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER with BEN. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of obtaining a more precise input in terms of user preferences in respect to different parameters the users cared about.
Both MER and BEN are in the same art (address interactive furnishing of a room) and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by MER and BEN would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN.
Regarding claim 4, MER/BEN teach the limitations of claim 1. MER further teaches (1)
further comprising, between steps e) and f), a step e') of: computing a global cost function, the global cost function being defined by the relation:
PNG
media_image9.png
70
367
media_image9.png
Greyscale
with gkpiparam_i the Key Performance Indicator value, and tkpiparam_i the target parameter for the KPI, and Nkpiparam a number of Key Performance Indicators; and applying at least one iteration of a modification of a 3D furnishing object in the furnished virtual 3D room proposal to minimize the global cost function. {MER Section 3.1]
PNG
media_image7.png
325
481
media_image7.png
Greyscale
…
[Section 3.1 right col, top] …The algorithm iterates until its computational budget is exhausted.
Regarding claim 8 (1), MER/BEN disclose the limitations of claim 1. BEN further discloses:
wherein the user preferences comprise a weighted set of parameters, said weighted set of parameters comprising at least one among the following group: brightness, including a luminosity level the user wants for the 3D room; accessibility, including a level of accessibility of 3D furnishing objects in the 3D room; occupancy, including a rate of space occupancy wanted in the 3D room; and regularity, including a harmony of repartition and alignment of the 3D furnishing objects inside the 3D room. {Benjamin: [0038] Placement parameters, such as placement parameters 214, are parameters that control how one or more transformed spatial units 250 are placed within a given layout Circulation parameter: a circulation parameter describes criteria and/or requirements for determining a circulation providing appropriate access to each of transformed spatial units 250 in packed layout 270} Accessibility parameter interpreted as circulation parameter.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN with further elements of BEN. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of obtaining a more precise input in terms of user preferences in respect to different parameters that influence the quality of room arrangement..
Both MER and BEN are in the same art (address interactive furnishing of a room) and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by MER/BEN and further elements of BEN would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN.
Claims 2(1), 16(2), 17(2) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”) in further view of Hamdani et al, Method of Weight Update in Group Decision Making to Accommodate the Interests of All the Decision Makers, I.J. Intelligent Systems and Applications, 2017, 8, 1-10 (“HAM”)
Regarding claim 2 (1) MER/BEN does not teach, however HAM teaches
wherein, in step b), the target parameter is computed with formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
19
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Proposalkpiparam corresponds to a target parameter at a preceding iteration or a standard value for a first iteration of the method;
PNG
media_image2.png
29
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Skpi_param is a constant evolution rate; Nkpi is a number of user preferences impacting the Key Performance Indicator; wp is a weight of the user preference, provided by the user; and Wkpiparam is the weight of the user preference on the Key Performance Indicator.
In BRI the limitation is interpreted as updating the (target) parameter to a positive number obtained by adding to previous value of the parameter a change factor derived from the combination of weights of the user preference and impact of the preference on parameter.
Hamdani: [p 6] left col top Based on Table 1, data ranking obtained using a weight update method that has accommodated the interests of each DM. The weights used are the weight updates obtained from the direct weight previously. In equation (1), it is known that each DM has the initial weight namely which has similarities to each parameter. Then, is used by each DM to produce the weight updates based on the number of Pi . Furthermore, and are carried out using equation (5)… [p3 right col top] III. PROPOSED METHOD In this research, we propose a method to improve the results of weight update performed by decision maker (DM) in the weighting parameter subjectively or objectively; it produces the weight which has combined the interests of each DM. Such as an example of equation (5), to get the result of weight update parameter (Pi) which has similar relationship of parameters from each DM.
PNG
media_image10.png
115
321
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
191
327
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Preferences interpreted as weight updating subjectively or objectively.
The right term of Eq 6 can be rewritten as WDMI+WDMI*Wj, where Wj given by eq 5. Similar formalism as in the claim limitation.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN with HAM. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of moving towards the user preferred layout using user expressed preferences, more intuitively expressed, but converted into target parameters that affect final arrangement. .
The method described by HAM is generic and is used over a broad set of problems when one needs to combine information. Both MER/BEN and HAM are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by MER and BEN would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN in further view of HAM.
Regarding claim 16 (2) and 17 (2) – identical claim limitations, with same parent (claim 2), MER/BEN/HAM teach the limitation of the parent claim. MER further teaches:
further comprising, between steps e) and f), a step e') of: computing a global cost function, the global cost function being defined by the relation:
PNG
media_image4.png
77
375
media_image4.png
Greyscale
with gkpi_parami the Key Performance Indicator value, and tkpi_param_i the target parameter for the KPI, and Nkpi_param a number of Key Performance Indicators; and applying at least one iteration of a modification of a 3D furnishing object in the furnished virtual 3D room proposal to minimize the global cost function.
{MER Section 3.1]
PNG
media_image7.png
325
481
media_image7.png
Greyscale
…
[Section 3.1 right col, top] …The algorithm iterates until its computational budget is exhausted.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN in further view of HAM.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”) in further view of Zhang et al Active Arrangement of Small Objects in 3D Indoor Scenes, IEE Trans Visualization and Graphics, 2019 (“ZHA”)
Regarding claim 3, MER/BEN does not teach, however ZHA teaches
approximating each Key Performance Indicator value with an a priori Key Performance Indicator value; and computing a confidence coefficient for each Key Performance Indicator value, wherein, in the KPI distance, each a priori Key Performance Indicator value is weighted by its corresponding confidence coefficient.{ZHA: [p6 left col 4.4.1. Cost function] The general idea is to penalize the degree of misplacement of two categories according to their priority probabilities. For inequality case, as R> X (ci, cj) is the probability of yX(ci) > yX(cj), thus a cost will be introduced and weighted by R> X (ci, cj) only if ci and cj are placed in the opposite way, which makes 1(yX(ci) < yX(cj)) return 1. The cost is defined by the difference of the properties of ci and cj , which is mapped through a sigmoid function and weighted by the priority probability R> X (ci, cj)} Confidence coefficient interpreted as priority probability.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN with ZHA. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of incorporating uncertain in the expression of the preference, more accurately modeling the case when users are uncertain about their degree of preference. Both MER/BEN and HAM are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by MER and BEN would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN in further view of ZHA.
Claims 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”) in further view of Yu et al, Make it Home: Automatic Optimization of Furniture Arrangement, ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 4, Article 86 (July 2011) (“YU”)
Regarding claim 5 (4) MER/BEN teach the limitation of the parent claim. MER/BEN does not teach, however YU teaches:
wherein step e') is completed when a certain number of optimization iterations have been executed and/or the global cost function is below a certain threshold, when there is no overlapping between the 3D furnishing objects in the room.
PNG
media_image12.png
332
1444
media_image12.png
Greyscale
{YU: p. 86:5 Fig 6. “Final arrangement in 25,000 iterations”. For example, an overlap between a chair and a bed in the (x, y) space is penalized } [p 86, left col, middle] No overlapping at the end is implied by the penalties for overlap and large number of iterations.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN with YU. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage to leverage the most common stopping conditions, ending by number of iterations, or earlier if cost has been sufficiently minimized, while there are no violated conditions such as overlap (a physical impossibility or at least unusable arrangement). Both MER/BEN and YU are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by MER/BEN and YU would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN in further view of YU.
Regarding claim 7 (1) MER/BEN teach the limitation of the parent claim. MER/BEN does not teach, however YU teaches:
wherein step e') comprises one of the following operations, for at least one 3D furnishing object of the most promising spatial relations graph: displacement of the 3D furnishing object inside a valid subspace area; detection of a category of the 3D furnishing object corresponding to its function in the 3D room, and replacement of the 3D furnishing object by another 3D furnishing object of the same category, or replacement of the 3D furnishing object based on a list of substitute objects or based on data which are considered as optional attributes in the most promising spatial relations graph (MPGR); and deletion of the 3D furnishing object. {Yu: [ 86:2 – 2.1. Furniture Arrangement] Our furniture representation is similar in its use of furniture object interrelationships with parent-child hierarchies; [86:5- 4.2 Proposed Moves] Swapping Objects: To enable a more rapid exploration of the arrangement space and avoid becoming stuck in local minima, a move involving the swapping objects in the existing arrangement may be proposed. Two objects of the same tier are selected at random and their positions and orientations are interchanged} spatial relations graph interpreted as representation with object interrelationships with parent-child hierarchies; detection and replacement of 3D furnishing object interpreted as swapping objects.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN with YU. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage enabling a more rapid exploration of the arrangement space and avoid becoming stuck in local minima ( YU [86:5- 4.2 Proposed Moves] Swapping Objects). Both MER/BEN and YU are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by MER/BEN and YU would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN in further view of YU.
Claim 9 (1) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”) in further view of Wills and Meyer, Metrics for graph comparison: A practitioners guide, PlusOne 2020 (“WIL”)
Regarding claim 9, MER/BEN teaches the limitations of the parent claim. They do not tech however WIL teaches
further comprising computing a Graph Edit Distance between the most promising spatial relations graph and each of the at least one spatial relations graph, wherein the set of users preferences includes a satisfaction criterion, the most promising spatial relations graph being selected, for a next iteration, as a function of the Graph Edit Distance. { [Abstract] Comparison of graph structure is a ubiquitous task in data analysis and machine learning, with diverse applications in fields such as neuroscience, cyber security, social network analysis, and bioinformatics, among others. Discovery and comparison of structures such as modular communities, rich clubs, hubs, and trees yield insight into the generative mechanisms and functional properties of the graph. Often, two graphs are compared via a pairwise distance measure, with a small distance indicating structural similarity and vice versa. Common choices include spectral distances and distances based on node affinities [p45] Spectral distances also exhibit practical advantages over matrix distances, as they can inherently compare graphs of different sizes and can compare graphs without known vertex correspondence.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN with WIL. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a mechanism to search that favors replacement of a layout characterized by a graph with another one based on the distance – more far in distance would allow moving from a local minimum, while closer would ensure not moving far from a good solution. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN in further view of WIL.
Claim 10 (1) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”) in further view of Scarselli et al The Graph Neural Network Model, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 20, NO. 1, JANUARY 2009 (“SCA”)
Regarding claim 10, MER/BEN teaches the limitations of the parent claim. They do not tech however SCA teaches
wherein the dataset which maps spatial relations graph to Key Performance Indicator values is obtained by way of a machine-learning model which takes as input a graph and outputs a value for each KPIs values considered. {SCA: [Abstract]. In this paper, we propose a new neural network model, called graph neural network (GNN) model, that extends existing neural network methods for processing the data represented in graph domains. This GNN model, which can directly process most of the practically useful types of graphs, e.g., acyclic, cyclic, directed, and undirected, implements a function
PNG
media_image13.png
17
118
media_image13.png
Greyscale
that maps a graph and one of its n nodes into an m-dimensional Euclidean space.}
Mapping a spatial relations graph to Key Performance Indicator values by way of a machine-learning model which takes as input a graph and outputs a value for each KPIs value in BRI is interpreted a Graph Neural Network that maps a graph into a scalar value characteristic of the graph.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN with SCA. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of converting a graph into a scalar value characteristic of what the graph describes, in particular in terms of the properties of the furniture design KPI values. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN in further view of SCA.
Claim 11 (1) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”) in further view de Groot and Pikaar, Videowall Information Design: useless and useful applications, IEA 2006 (“GRO”)
Regarding claim 11, MER/BEN teaches the limitations of the parent claim. They do not tech however GRO teaches
wherein, in step f), the set of Key Performance Indicator values is displayed along with the furnished virtual 3D room proposal. [p4 right col bottom] Decide on a set of key performance indicators Find a comprehensive selection of independent information elements to show on the overview display: called Key Performance Indicators (KPI).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN with GR. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of having the user at all time monitor the progress and association between layout and KPI values. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN in further view of GRO.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”) in further view of Zhang et al Active Arrangement of Small Objects in 3D Indoor Scenes, IEE Trans Visualization and Graphics, 2019 (“ZHA”) in further view of Messervy et al US 20210124850 A1 (“MES”)
Regarding claim 12 (1) MER/BEN teach the limitation of the parent claim. MER/BEN does not teach, however MES teaches
wherein the user preferences are updated by the user by way of sliders, each slider corresponding to a user preference. {Messervy: [0049] entering the user's preferences 129, the user views the 3D-animated image of the suggested landscape design 180 and has the options to make refinements using the slider buttons 90}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN with MES. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of using the popular method of modifying values with sliders in a graphical user interface with high convenience to the user. Both MER/BEN and MES are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by MER/ BEN and MES would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN in further view of MES.
Claims 15(2) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”) in further view of Hamdani et al, Method of Weight Update in Group Decision Making to Accommodate the Interests of All the Decision Makers, I.J. Intelligent Systems and Applications, 2017, 8, 1-10 (“HAM”) in further view of Zhang et al Active Arrangement of Small Objects in 3D Indoor Scenes, IEE Trans Visualization and Graphics, 2019 (“ZHA”)
Regarding claim 15(2) MER/BEN/HAM teach the limitation of the parent claim. MER/BEN/HAM does not teach, however ZHA teaches:
further comprising: approximating each Key Performance Indicator value with an a priori Key Performance Indicator value; and computing a confidence coefficient for each Key Performance Indicator value, wherein, in the KPI distance, each a priori Key Performance Indicator value is weighted by its corresponding confidence coefficient. {ZHA: [p6 left col 4.4.1. Cost function] The general idea is to penalize the degree of misplacement of two categories according to their priority probabilities. For inequality case, as R> X (ci, cj) is the probability of yX(ci) > yX(cj), thus a cost will be introduced and weighted by R> X (ci, cj) only if ci and cj are placed in the opposite way, which makes 1(yX(ci) < yX(cj)) return 1. The cost is defined by the difference of the properties of ci and cj , which is mapped through a sigmoid function and weighted by the priority probability R> X (ci, cj)} Confidence coefficient interpreted as priority probability.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN/HAM with ZHA. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of incorporating uncertain in the expression of the preference, more accurately modeling the case when users are uncertain about their degree of preference. Both MER/BEN/ HAM and ZHA are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by MER/ BEN/HAM and ZHA would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN/HAM in further view of ZHA.
Claims 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”) in further view of Wikipedia – based on archived version of 2020 https://web.archive.org/web/20200721160202/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_sorting
(“WIK”) in further view of Zhang et al Active Arrangement of Small Objects in 3D Indoor Scenes, IEE Trans Visualization and Graphics, 2019 (“ZHA”)
Regarding claim 6 (1) MER/BEN teach the limitations of the parent claim. They do not teach; however WIK teaches
wherein, the at least one spatial relations graph is directed and each node is connected to another node by an incoming relation or by an outgoing relation, and step e) comprises sub-steps of: ordering nodes of the 3D furnishing objects by a number of incoming relations they have, then descending by a number of outgoing relations and finally by their size; { In computer science, a topological sort or topological ordering of a directed graph is a linear ordering of its vertices such that for every directed edge uv from vertex u to vertex v, u comes before v in the ordering. For instance, the vertices of the graph may represent tasks to be performed, and the edges may represent constraints that one task must be performed before another; in this application, a topological ordering is just a valid sequence for the tasks.; See Kahn’s algorithm
In BRI the limitation recites topological sorting, as exemplified by Kahn’s algorithm.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN with WIK. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of implementing the graph that describes the relationships between elements and as a first step to provide an order for placement. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN in further view of WIK.
MER/BEN/WIK do not teach; however ZHA teaches
and for each node of a 3D furnishing object, according to a descending order: computing a valid subspace area, which is an area of the 3D room where the 3D furnishing object corresponding to the node can be instantiated, based on constraints of the 3D room; and instantiating the 3D furnishing object in the middle of the valid subspace area.{ Regarding the property of 3D position, we tackle
the arrangement problem by considering three types of relative spatial relations between small object categories, including middleness, height and depth. They denote the relative spatial information along the x, y and z axes, respectively, in the right-handed coordinate system. It should be noted that
middleness denotes the quantity of being close to the middle axis.; [p4 right col, bottom] Middleness priority. Similarly, some small objects tend to be placed nearer to the middle axis of a supporting
surface than others, e.g., placing a laptop to the middle of a desk is beneficial for accessibility.} Determining middle implicitly involves a computation of the area.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN/WIK with ZHA. A POSITA would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of maximizing distances to surrounding objects and thus increase circulation, accessibility. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN in further view of WIK.
Claims 18 (2) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”) in further view of Hamdani et al, Method of Weight Update in Group Decision Making to Accommodate the Interests of All the Decision Makers, I.J. Intelligent Systems and Applications, 2017, 8, 1-10 (“HAM”) in further view of Wikipedia – based on archived version of 2020 https://web.archive.org/web/20200721160202/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_sorting
(“WIK”) in further view of Zhang et al Active Arrangement of Small Objects in 3D Indoor Scenes, IEE Trans Visualization and Graphics, 2019 (“ZHA”)
Regarding claim 18 (2) MER/BEN/HAM teach the limitations of the parent claim. They do not teach; however WIK teaches
wherein, the at least one spatial relations graph is directed and each node is connected to another node by an incoming relation or by an outgoing relation, and step e) comprises sub-steps of: ordering nodes of the 3D furnishing objects by a number of incoming relations they have, then descending by a number of outgoing relations and finally by their size; { In computer science, a topological sort or topological ordering of a directed graph is a linear ordering of its vertices such that for every directed edge uv from vertex u to vertex v, u comes before v in the ordering. For instance, the vertices of the graph may represent tasks to be performed, and the edges may represent constraints that one task must be performed before another; in this application, a topological ordering is just a valid sequence for the tasks.; See Kahn’s algorithm
In BRI the limitation recites topological sorting, as exemplified by Kahn’s algorithm.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN/HAM with WIK. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of implementing the graph that describes the relationships between elements and as a first step to provide an order for placement. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN/HAM in further view of WIK.
MER/BEN/HAM/WIK do not teach; however ZHA teaches
and for each node of a 3D furnishing object, according to a descending order: computing a valid subspace area, which is an area of the 3D room where the 3D furnishing object corresponding to the node can be instantiated, based on constraints of the 3D room; and instantiating the 3D furnishing object in the middle of the valid subspace area.{ Regarding the property of 3D position, we tackle
the arrangement problem by considering three types of relative spatial relations between small object categories, including middleness, height and depth. They denote the relative spatial information along the x, y and z axes, respectively, in the right-handed coordinate system. It should be noted that
middleness denotes the quantity of being close to the middle axis.; [p4 right col, bottom] Middleness priority. Similarly, some small objects tend to be placed nearer to the middle axis of a supporting
surface than others, e.g., placing a laptop to the middle of a desk is beneficial for accessibility.} Determining middle implicitly involves a computation of the area.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN/WIK with ZHA. A POSITA would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of maximizing distances to surrounding objects and thus increase circulation, accessibility. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN/HAM/WIK in further view of ZHA.
Claims 19 (3) 20 (4) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrell et al Interactive Furniture Layout Using Interior Design Guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2011 (“MER”) in view of Benjamin et al, US 20210150092 A1, (“BEN”) in further view of Zhang et al Active Arrangement of Small Objects in 3D Indoor Scenes, IEE Trans Visualization and Graphics, 2019 (“ZHA”) in further view of Wikipedia – based on archived version of 2020 https://web.archive.org/web/20200721160202/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_sorting
(“WIK”)
Regarding clam 19 (3) MER/BEN/ZHA teach the limitations of parent claim. Zha further teaches
for each node of a 3D furnishing object, according to a descending order: computing a valid subspace area, which is an area of the 3D room where the 3D furnishing object corresponding to the node can be instantiated, based on constraints of the 3D room; and instantiating the 3D furnishing object in the middle of the valid subspace area.{ Regarding the property of 3D position, we tackle
the arrangement problem by considering three types of relative spatial relations between small object categories, including middleness, height and depth. They denote the relative spatial information along the x, y and z axes, respectively, in the right-handed coordinate system. It should be noted that
middleness denotes the quantity of being close to the middle axis.; [p4 right col, bottom] Middleness priority. Similarly, some small objects tend to be placed nearer to the middle axis of a supporting
surface than others, e.g., placing a laptop to the middle of a desk is beneficial for accessibility.} Determining middle implicitly involves a computation of the area.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN/ZHA with further elements of ZHA. A POSITA would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of maximizing distances to surrounding objects and thus increase circulation, accessibility. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN/ZHA.
MER/BEN/ZHA does not teach, however WIK teaches
wherein, the at least one spatial relations graph is directed and each node is connected to another node by an incoming relation or by an outgoing relation, and step e) comprises sub-steps of: ordering nodes of the 3D furnishing objects by a number of incoming relations they have, then descending by a number of outgoing relations and finally by their size; { In computer science, a topological sort or topological ordering of a directed graph is a linear ordering of its vertices such that for every directed edge uv from vertex u to vertex v, u comes before v in the ordering. For instance, the vertices of the graph may represent tasks to be performed, and the edges may represent constraints that one task must be performed before another; in this application, a topological ordering is just a valid sequence for the tasks.; See Kahn’s algorithm
In BRI the limitation recites topological sorting, as exemplified by Kahn’s algorithm.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN/ZHA with WIK. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of implementing the graph that describes the relationships between elements and as a first step to provide an order for placement. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN/ZHA in further view of WIK.
Regarding clam 20 (4) MER/BEN teach the limitations of parent claim. They do not teach, however Zha further teaches
for each node of a 3D furnishing object, according to a descending order: computing a valid subspace area, which is an area of the 3D room where the 3D furnishing object corresponding to the node can be instantiated, based on constraints of the 3D room; and instantiating the 3D furnishing object in the middle of the valid subspace area.{ Regarding the property of 3D position, we tackle
the arrangement problem by considering three types of relative spatial relations between small object categories, including middleness, height and depth. They denote the relative spatial information along the x, y and z axes, respectively, in the right-handed coordinate system. It should be noted that
middleness denotes the quantity of being close to the middle axis.; [p4 right col, bottom] Middleness priority. Similarly, some small objects tend to be placed nearer to the middle axis of a supporting
surface than others, e.g., placing a laptop to the middle of a desk is beneficial for accessibility.} Determining middle implicitly involves a computation of the area.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN with ZHA. A POSITA would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of maximizing distances to surrounding objects and thus increase circulation, accessibility. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN/ZHA.
MER/BEN/ZHA does not teach, however WIK teaches
wherein, the at least one spatial relations graph is directed and each node is connected to another node by an incoming relation or by an outgoing relation, and step e) comprises sub-steps of: ordering nodes of the 3D furnishing objects by a number of incoming relations they have, then descending by a number of outgoing relations and finally by their size; { In computer science, a topological sort or topological ordering of a directed graph is a linear ordering of its vertices such that for every directed edge uv from vertex u to vertex v, u comes before v in the ordering. For instance, the vertices of the graph may represent tasks to be performed, and the edges may represent constraints that one task must be performed before another; in this application, a topological ordering is just a valid sequence for the tasks.; See Kahn’s algorithm
In BRI the limitation recites topological sorting, as exemplified by Kahn’s algorithm.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MER/BEN/ZHA with WIK. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of implementing the graph that describes the relationships between elements and as a first step to provide an order for placement. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MER/BEN/ZHA in further view of WIK.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Merrell et al Computer-generated residential building layouts, SA '10: SIGGRAPH ASIA 2010
Wang et al, PlanIT: Planning and Instantiating Indoor Scenes with Relation Graph and Spatial Prior Networks. ACM Trans. Graph., Vol. 38, No. 4, Article 132. Publication date: July 2019.
Yuan et al, A survey of recent 3D scene analysis and processing methods< Multimedia Tools and App (2021) 80:19491-19511
Zhang et al, Semantic 3D indoor scene enhancement using guide words, Vis Comput (2017) 33:925-935
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188