DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended.
This office action is in response to the RCE submitted on 11-Jun-2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
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 Arguments – 35 USC 101
On pgs. 8-12 of the Applicant/Arguments Remarks, Applicant argues the amended claims have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101.
The applicant on pg. 8 argues the amended claims are not directed towards a mental process, rather they recite specific steps of generating a design problem specification based on a design problem with a load constraint and a design objective, finally generating a mesh geometry.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, the generating of the design problem specification is a mental problem. Defining a constraint and a design object are also mental processes. Using a computer to produce the resulting mesh and execute the design workflow is merely applying the abstract idea to a technological field.
The applicant is reminded of 2106.05(f) of the MPEP:
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on "the draftsman’s art").
The applicant on pg. 10-11 additionally argues the claim limitations integrate into a practical application and provide improvements to the technology.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. A proper statement of the rule as given by Enfish: For that reason, the first step in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. (see Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Court’s analysis of the claim hinged on the “self-referential table” limitation being an improvement over the conventional technology and not invoking the computer as a tool. In instant claim 1, the limitations are directed to creating a safe operations plan. Creating a plan based on error measurements can be performed mentally by a human. The claimed improvement is an improvement on the mental process, but invokes a computer as a tool to perform the mental process. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a) paragraph 6).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered, and are not persuasive. The rejection under 101 is maintained.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection provided below.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Statutory class – process.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes
“3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).” MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The claims are directed to an abstract idea of data processing and analysis. The claim recites:
generating a design problem specification based on the design problem; wherein the design problem specification includes at least one load constraint associated with the architectural structure, a volume fraction constraint indicating a target density of the architectural structure, and at least one design objective for maximizing or minimizing at least one physical property associated with the architectural structure.
generating an optimized mesh geometry by executing a topology optimization solver on the design problem specification wherein the optimized mesh geometry comprises a triangle-based mesh geometry that satisfies each of the at least one load constraint, the volume fraction constraint, and the at least one design objective included in the design problem specification.
generating a graph structure based on the optimized mesh geometry; and
generating a three-dimensional (3D) model based on the graph structure.
The generating limitations are mental processes of evaluation, judgement and mathematical calculations. By way of example, one can mentally generate specification based on a design problem, evaluate the mesh geometry, the graph structure and draw the 3D model.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The additional elements are:
receiving a design problem;
automatically executing a design workflow via a workflow script that automatically initiates each operation in a sequence of operations comprising:
The receiving is mere data collection. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The executing is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation are mere data collection and instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer and a general purpose computer. They do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. This claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites wherein the 3D model comprises a design solution that satisfies the design problem, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites automatically modifying the design problem to generate a modified design problem; automatically executing the design workflow based on the modified design problem to generate a modified design solution that satisfies the modified design problem, which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites receiving a set of iteration parameters that specifies a number of iterations of the design workflow, which is mere data collection under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B.
automatically executing the design workflow a number of times commensurate with the number of iterations to generate a plurality of design solutions for a plurality of design problems, which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B.
Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites the 3D model comprises a set of modular components that include a plurality of joints interconnected by a plurality of beams, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites the plurality of joints satisfies a set of joint parameters specified in the design problem, and the plurality of beams satisfies a set of beam parameters specified in the design problem, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites the design problem is received via a visual programming interface associated with the modeling tool engine, which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites the design problem includes a set of beam parameters specifying one or more dimensions of a beam component, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites the set of beam parameters includes a beam thickness parameter that specifies a thickness of the beam component, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites the set of beam parameters includes a beam width parameter that specifies a width of the beam component, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (statutory category – machine)
storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate a design for an architectural structure by performing the steps of, which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B.
The remaining limitations are similar to claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 12-16, are medium claims and recite substantially the same elements as method Claims 3, 8-10, and 4 respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17 recites the set of iteration parameters further includes a range of values for a first constraint and an adjustment amount for the first constraint that is applied in different iterations of the design workflow, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 18 recites the set of iteration parameters further includes a range of values for a beam thickness constraint and an adjustment amount for the beam thickness constraint that is applied in different iterations of the design workflow, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 19 recites the set of iteration parameters further includes a range of values for a beam width constraint and an adjustment amount for the beam width constraint that is applied in different iterations of the design workflow, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 20 is a system claim and recites substantially the same elements as medium Claim 11, and is rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 21 recites wherein the volume fraction constraint specifies a target fraction of a design volume that is to be filled with material of the architectural structure, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 22 recites wherein the design volume comprises a volume wherein the material of the architectural structure is permitted to exist, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-12, 16-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nardi et al. (US-20140277669-A1) in view of Nourbakhsh et al. (EMBEDDED SENSORS AND FEEDBACK LOOPS FOR ITERATIVE IMPROVEMENT IN DESIGN SYNTHESIS).
Regarding Claim 1, Nardi teaches A computer-implemented method for generating a design for an architectural structure, the method comprising: receiving a design problem (Nardi, [0060-0061] "As described above, a framework for additive topology optimized manufacturing processes may be developed, where design and analysis tools may be systematically arranged and merged for a preliminary design stage of a component fabricated by AM. An example of the framework, shown in FIG. 4, comprises two main stages. The first stage 402 may be associated with a concept stage, while a second stage 452 may define or provide the required steps for the detailed design stage. Both design and AM requirements 406 may be input in the concept generation stage 402. These requirements 406 may define the concept constraints and objective 408 for the TO modeling approach and design space 410. The TO design 410, which may be a function of manufacturability requirements 411, may then be interpreted in computer aided design/computer aided drawing tool(s) (CAD) 412, with the AM process characteristics guiding the interpretation. Finite element analysis (FEA) may be performed on the CAD model 412 to determine the part performance and stress state. The CAD model 412 may be a function of a detailed concept analysis 413, potentially as part of an iterative process. A design optimizer module 454, using shape optimization methods, may then be activated including the specified multi-physics models. The process may be repeated until the new design satisfies the objectives. A functional grading module 414 can also be used to enhance the part performance. The design interpretation may then be utilized in CAD 412 to modify the design and repeat the analysis until the proposed design satisfies all requirements including fatigue analysis. To that end, the approach may be divided into a “concept stage” 402, which may rely heavily on the inputs of a design engineer, and a “design stage” 452 where parameters associated with the design may be optimized using one or more tools (e.g., automated software tools).")
automatically executing a design workflow via a workflow script that automatically initiates each operation in a sequence of operations comprising: (Nardi, [0068] "FIG. 5A illustrates an embodiment of an architecture that can be used to integrate multiple models for design optimization methodology such as that performed in the design optimizer 454 of FIG. 4. The architecture may be based on the software described above. One or more models 502 may serve as input to a study engine 504. The study engine 504 may cause one or more variants 506 to be created. The variants 506 and the study engine 504 may drive one or more simulations 508, which may generate results 510. The results may be extracted by the study engine 504. The study engine may study the results 512, potentially based on, or in terms of, one or more parameters, sensitivities, model robustness, etc.")
generating a design problem specification based on the design problem (Nardi, [0068])
wherein the design problem specification includes at least one load constraint associated with the architectural structure , a volume fraction constraint indicating a target density of the architectural structure, and at least one design objective for maximizing or minimizing at least one physical property associated with the architectural structure (Nardi, [0081] "As a first or preliminary step, the given design requirements may be obtained and a subset of constraints may be extracted that applies at the concept level, which may be: 1) Geometry constraints (design space); 2) Interface constraints; 3) Minimum feature size constraints; 4) Load conditions for which the performance constraints must be satisfied; and 5) Performance constraints. The general process flow may start by defining a region whose entire volume is eligible to participate in the load path. Then the region may then be meshed for FEA, loads and specifications may be given, and the TO may be allowed to run." [0109] "In some instances, it may be desirable to minimize part compliance. For example, a part may be subjected to a volume fraction constraint, where only a specified fraction of the initial volume may be allowed to be retained in the solution. The resulting solution using a 5% volume fraction constraint—a condition that may provide a clear design guidance—is shown in FIG. 13 visualized inside the original design space 1202. The surface 1302 may be the isosurface with a threshold structural density of, e.g., 0.25; all material on the inside of the surface 1302 may have a density resulting from the TO solution of greater than 0.25 (on a 0 to 1 scale). The remaining material not enclosed by the surface 1302 is indicated by reference character 1304. The remaining material 1304 may have a structural density of less than 0.25 and may be deemed nonessential." [0125] "An optimization objective may be to minimize weight subject to a constraint on the maximum principal stress (defined as max(|P1|,|P3|) of elements, where P1 may be the major principal stress and P3 may be the minor principal stress). The level of the maximum principal stress constraint may be varied to examine the optimized results at different allowable stress levels (this was for demonstration—it is more direct to start with the initial concept and specify one stress constraint level).")
generating an optimized mesh geometry by executing a topology optimization solver on the design problem specification wherein the optimized mesh geometry comprises a triangle-based mesh geometry that satisfies each of the at least one load constraint, the volume fraction constraint, and the at least one design objective included in the design problem specification (Nardi, [0081-0082] and [0107] "Setup of the design space may be the first opportunity to incorporate (additive) manufacturing constraints. The solid design space 1202 in this illustrative embodiment is shown in FIG. 12A. Pathways for important fasteners and assembly components were removed from the design space and appear as holes in the solid model. A transparent view (FIG. 12B) shows how the non-design regions (e.g., 1220) are associated with it. These non-design regions 1220 may provide a fixed connection to adjacent assembly components and might not be subject to TO [topology optimization]. The design space 1202 may be meshed for FE analysis using first-order tetrahedral elements (FIG. 12C) and TO [topology optimization] may be performed with loading conditions." Also see [0108-0111] EN: Tetrahedral elements are triangular.)
However, Nardi is not relied upon for:
generating a graph structure based on the optimized mesh geometry
generating a three-dimensional (3D) model based on the graph structure
Nourbakhsh teaches generating a graph structure based on the optimized mesh geometry (Nourbakhsh, Pg 5, Fig. 7, connect nodes to form beams and "We determined the positions of nodes within the volume using pseudo-random volumetric sampling with the specified density and then connected the nodes to their nearest neighbors to form the initial beam network. Invalid connections were then pruned such that no beam crossed existing geometry or boundary conditions. The boundary condition geometries were kept as surfaces and additional beams were used to connect these surfaces to the rest of the network. The beam thicknesses were then iteratively optimized using the gradient-free, fully constrained method of [19] while ensuring that no member’s stress exceeded the yield stress safety factor. During optimization some beam elements’ thicknesses dropped below printable limits and were thus discarded from the final design.")
generating a three-dimensional (3D) model based on the graph structure (Pg. 5, Fig. 7, The final design is a 3d model. Pg. 1, "To demonstrate this method, we present a case study of design iteration on a car chassis. First, we installed various sensors on the chassis and measured forces applied during various maneuvers. Second, we used these data to define a high-level engineering problem as a collection of design requirements and constraints. Third, using an ensemble of topology and beam-based optimization techniques, we created a number of novel solutions. Finally, we selected one of the design solutions and because of some manufacturability constraints we, 3D-printed a prototype for the next generation of design at one third scale." Also see Nardi [0107] and Fig. 12. The design mesh resultant from the optimization is a 3D model.)
Nardi and Nourbakhsh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in generative architecture design. Nourbakhsh teaches the use of graphs and beams in the 3D architecture design of structures. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Nardi and Nourbakhsh to offer a wider variety of customization options in the architecture designs including graphs and beams. “These methods promote innovative thinking and provide solutions that can augment a designer’s abilities to solve problems.” (Nourbakhsh, Abstract) Note: MPEP 2143- (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Nardi in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 1. Nourbakhsh further teaches wherein the 3D model comprises a design solution that satisfies the design problem (Pg. 5, Fig. 7 shows the last step in the design flow being the final model satisfying the previous iterations for optimization while incorporating the various design constraints.).
Regarding Claim 3, Nardi in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 1. Nourbakhsh further teaches automatically modifying the design problem to generate a modified design problem (Fig. 7, Pg. 5, Design Synthesis, "The beam thicknesses were then iteratively optimized using the gradient-free, fully constrained method of [19] while ensuring that no member’s stress exceeded the yield stress safety factor," and Pg. 2, Proposed Methods, “Next, the usage data are analyzed for the problem definition stage in which users define their high-level engineering problem as a collection of design requirements and constraints. In the next step, an ensemble shape synthesis algorithm, composed of topology and beam-based optimization algorithms, synthesizes various geometries based on the combination of volume constant and number of iterations in the topology optimization with density and degree of connectivity in the beam-based optimization”).
automatically executing the design workflow based on the modified design problem to generate a modified design solution that satisfies the modified design problem (Fig. 7 shows the design workflow being executed).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Nardi in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 1. Nourbakhsh, further teaches receiving a set of iteration parameters that specifies a number of iterations of the design workflow (Fig. 7, and Pg. 2, Proposed Method, "an ensemble shape synthesis algorithm, composed of topology and beam-based optimization algorithms, synthesizes various geometries based on the combination of volume constant and number of iterations in the topology optimization with density and degree of connectivity in the beam-based optimization").
automatically executing the design workflow a number of times commensurate with the number of iterations to generate a plurality of design solutions for a plurality of design problems (Fig. 7 shows the execution with the iterations).
Regarding Claim 11, Nardi teaches 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 ([0144] “Embodiments may be implemented using one or more technologies. In some embodiments, an apparatus or system may include one or more processors, and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus or system to perform one or more methodological acts as described herein. Various mechanical components known to those of skill in the art may be used in some embodiments.”).
The remaining limitations are similar to claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 12 and 16, are medium claims and recite substantially the same elements as method Claims 3 and 4 respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 17, Nardi in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 16. Nourbakhsh further teaches wherein the set of iteration parameters further includes a range of values for a first constraint and an adjustment amount for the first constraint that is applied in different iterations of the design workflow (Pg. 5, Design Synthesis, "The beam thicknesses were then iteratively optimized using the gradient-free, fully constrained method of [19] while ensuring that no member’s stress exceeded the yield stress safety factor. During optimization some beam elements’ thicknesses dropped below printable limits and were thus discarded from the final design").
Regarding Claim 18, Nardi in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 16. Nourbakhsh further teaches wherein the set of iteration parameters further includes a range of values for a beam thickness constraint and an adjustment amount for the beam thickness constraint that is applied in different iterations of the design workflow (Pg. 5, Design Synthesis, "The beam thicknesses were then iteratively optimized using the gradient-free, fully constrained method of [19] while ensuring that no member’s stress exceeded the yield stress safety factor. During optimization some beam elements’ thicknesses dropped below printable limits and were thus discarded from the final design").
Claims 20 is a system claim and recites substantially the same elements as medium Claim 11, and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 21, Nardi in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 1. Nardi further teaches wherein the volume fraction constraint specifies a target fraction of a design volume that is to be filled with material of the architectural structure ([0081] and [0109] “In some instances, it may be desirable to minimize part compliance. For example, a part may be subjected to a volume fraction constraint, where only a specified fraction of the initial volume may be allowed to be retained in the solution. The resulting solution using a 5% volume fraction constraint—a condition that may provide a clear design guidance—is shown in FIG. 13 visualized inside the original design space 1202. The surface 1302 may be the isosurface with a threshold structural density of, e.g., 0.25; all material on the inside of the surface 1302 may have a density resulting from the TO solution of greater than 0.25 (on a 0 to 1 scale). The remaining material not enclosed by the surface 1302 is indicated by reference character 1304. The remaining material 1304 may have a structural density of less than 0.25 and may be deemed nonessential.”)
Regarding Claim 22, Nardi in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 21. Nardi further teaches wherein the design volume comprises a volume wherein the material of the architectural structure is permitted to exist ([0081] and [0109])
Claims 5-10, 13-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nardi et al. (US-20140277669-A1) in view of Nourbakhsh et al. (EMBEDDED SENSORS AND FEEDBACK LOOPS FOR ITERATIVE IMPROVEMENT IN DESIGN SYNTHESIS) and further in view of Schaffer et al. (US-11429758-B1)
Regarding Claim 5, Nardi in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 1. Schaffer further teaches wherein the 3D model comprises a set of modular components that include a plurality of joints interconnected by a plurality of beams (Col 5, 28-33, "Each structure template includes a set of points that represent joints of the overhead line structure and components that represent elements (e.g., that represent concrete posts, steel pipes, I-beams, channel shapes, angle shapes, insulators, wires, etc.) of the overhead line structure").
Nardi, Nourbakhsh, and Schaffer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in generative architecture design. Schaffer teaches the use of joints and joint parameters in the 3D architecture design of structures. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine Nardi, Nourbakhsh and Schaffer to offer a wider variety of customization options in the architecture designs including joints and beams. Note: MPEP 2143- (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Schaffer in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 5. Schaffer further teaches wherein the plurality of joints satisfies a set of joint parameters specified in the design problem, and the plurality of beams satisfies a set of beam parameters specified in the design problem (Col 2, 58-60, "Each point and component of a structure template has a feature definition that may include properties, constraints and, in some cases, cell mappings").
Regarding Claim 7, Nardi in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 1. Schaffer further teaches wherein the design problem is received via a visual programming interface associated with the modeling tool engine (Please see Fig 6A-6B).
For motivation to combine please see claim 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
675
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Nardi in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 1. Schaffer further teaches wherein the design problem includes a set of beam parameters specifying one or more dimensions of a beam component (Col 5, 38-41, "The properties may indicate type (e.g., regular point or key point for a point), size (depth, diameter, length etc. for a component) or other information")
For motivation to combine please see claim 5.
Regarding Claim 9, Schaffer in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 8. Schaffer further teaches wherein the set of beam parameters includes a beam thickness parameter that specifies a thickness of the beam component (Col 4, 48-53, "For example, a parametric cell that represents a pipe may have dimensions of length, diameter and wall thickness that can be adjusted at placement time to change visual appearance of the pipe").
For motivation to combine please see claim 5.
Regarding Claim 10, Schaffer in view of Nourbakhsh and further in view of Schaffer teaches the method of claim 8. Schaffer further teaches wherein the set of beam parameters includes a beam width parameter that specifies a width of the beam component (Col 5, 38-41, "The properties may indicate type (e.g., regular point or key point for a point), size (depth, diameter, length etc. for a component) or other information").
For motivation to combine please see claim 5.
Claims 13-15, are medium claims and recite substantially the same elements as method Claims 8-10 respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 19, Nardi in view of Nourbakhsh teaches the method of claim 16. Schaffer further teaches wherein the set of iteration parameters further includes a range of values for a beam width constraint and an adjustment amount for the beam width constraint that is applied in different iterations of the design workflow (Col 4, 49-52, "a parametric cell that represents a pipe may have dimensions of length, diameter and wall thickness that can be adjusted at placement time to change visual appearance of the pipe").
For motivation to combine please see claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mukkavaara et al (Architectural Design Exploration Using Generative Design): Discloses a framework for generative architecture design.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR DARWISH whose telephone number is (571)272-4779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Thurs.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights