DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 05 August 2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15 have been amended in the response received on 05 August 2025.
Claims 4 and 14 have been canceled in the response received on 05 August 2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites receiving user preference information from the user terminal, and also recites in which applied laws and ordnances are searched which appears to be a typographical errors. The claim should recite the limitations as receiving user preference information from a user terminal and in which applied laws and ordinances are searched. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-3, 5-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-3, 5-8 & 15 are directed to method, and claims 9-13 are directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of offering a recommendation. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
step one-receiving user preference information from the user;
step two-receiving data resulting from measuring a target space;
step three-detecting plane views and objects essential to the interior decoration from the data;
step four-analyzing user preferences and generating thematic interior decoration designs to arrange each interior decoration element in the space and provide the user with visualizations, in which applied laws and ordnances are searched by analyzing user preference information, generates sample 2D drawings based on the result of the search and provide 3D models based on the sample 2D drawings, creating interior decoration designs by themes to arrange each interior decoration element in the space;
step five-providing the user with a service environment in which a partner company offers goods matching the interior decoration elements selected.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of offering a recommendation, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims recite the steps of receiving user preferences, receiving data of measurements for the target space, detecting plane views and objects that are essential to the interior decoration, analyze user preferences and generate thematic interior decoration designs to arrange each element in the space and provide the user with visuals in which applied laws and ordnances are searched by analyzing user preference information, generates sample 2D drawings based on the result of the search and provide 3D models based on the sample 2D drawings, creating interior decoration designs by themes to arrange each interior decoration element in the space, and providing within the service environment a partner company that offers goods that match the interior decoration elements that are selected, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: generative adversarial networks (GANs) used in a device, the user terminal, the user terminal camera, using GANs, with the help of GANs, the user terminal, server, and the user terminal.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., offering a recommendation) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 of generative adversarial networks (GANs) used in a device, the user terminal, the user terminal camera, using GANs, with the help of GANs, the user terminal, server, and the user terminal are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claim 9 is similar in nature to representative claim 1, and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 9 includes the additional elements of a device, a data-receiving unit, an interior decoration constitution unit, help of GANs, and a sale environment provision unit. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements in claim 9 as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 9 and 15 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claim 9 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 9, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claim 9 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8 & 15, and 10-13, depending from claims 1 and 9 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 2-3, 5-8 & 15, and 10-13 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims includes the additional elements of a blockchain coin (claims 2, 6, 7, 10, & 13), training step to train GANs (claim 7), a conditional generative adversarial network (CGAN) (claim 8), a coin processing unit configured to provide the user terminal with a blockchain coin (claim 10), the coin processing unit (claim 13), and a non-transitory recording medium, which a program uses (claim 15). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the recited additional elements, as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 2, 6-8, 10, 13, and 15 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 2, 6-8, 10, 13, and 15, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 3, 5, 11, and 12 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, &15, and 10-13 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavesky, E., et al. (PGP No. US 2021/0335050 A1), in view of Murphy, P., et al. (PGP No. US 2022/0292240 A1).
Claim 1-
Zavesky discloses a method of offering recommendation on interior decoration using generative adversarial networks (GANs) used in a device of offering recommendation on interior decoration comprises the following steps (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0021] disclosing “GAN models and/or suggestions can follow, for example, constraints of existing house framework” and see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “can operate on an interior”):
a) step one-receiving user preference information from the user terminal (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “system 250 can include XR Device 254 [i.e., user terminal] (which can be used by User 252”; and [0036] disclosing “User 252 can provide (see arrow 270F) input preferences to Preference Adaptation 258” and “User 252 can visually inspect a room, building, home, or the like via use of XR Device 254”);
b) step two-receiving data resulting from a target space using a user terminal camera (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “XR Device 254 can communicate with Geometry Understanding 256 (see arrow 2701) to facilitate generation of a new 3D model from camera” Also see paragraph [0039] and FIG. 2B);
c) step three-detecting plane views and objects essential to the interior decoration from the data (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “can operate on 2D [i.e., plane view]…floor plans”; and see: paragraph [0039] disclosing “the system can extract cues (e.g., geometric objects and configurations)” and “geometry scanning and object detection” and “can…be integrated for a more cohesive (whole home remodel) model” Also see paragraph [0049] describing the method for decorating a space by utilizing user decorating preferences that are stored. Also see paragraph [0060] describing objects in 2D images);
d) step four-analyzing user preferences using GANs and generating thematic interior decoration designs to arrange each interior decoration element in the space and provide the user with visualizations, in which by analyzing user preference information with the help of GANs, generates sample 2D drawings and provide 3D models based on the sample 2D drawings, creating interior decoration designs by themes to arrange each interior decoration element in the space (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0021] disclosing “include 2D and/or 3D generative models, e.g., 2D-GAN and/or 3D-GAN (generative adversarial network), for fast remodeling synthesis based on scanning of current room and design preference (e.g. styles)”; and see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “operate on an interior (e.g., inside room)” and “can comprise product offerings (e.g., furniture and/or accessories)” and “can operate on 2D and/or 3D floor plans” and “the Preference Adaptation 258 can utilize a GAN”; and paragraph [0036] disclosing “Device 254 can communicate with Geometry Understanding 256 (see arrow 2701) to facilitate generation of a new 3D model from camera” and paragraph [0040] disclosing “the system can optionally be used to locally move objects” [0045] disclosing “decorating style preference of a user can comprise: one or more high-level textual/conceptual descriptions (e.g. pre-existing labels from a taxonomy of visual descriptors, such as “beach”, “mountain”, “forest”); and see: paragraph [0088] disclosing “a style GAN that can map from a user's 3D and/or 2D structure to objects that have properties matching the user's preferred style”);
e) step five-providing the user terminal with a service environment in which a partner company server offers goods matching the interior decoration elements selected in the user terminal (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “the Vendor Marketplace 262 can comprise product offerings (e.g., furniture and/or accessories) from a plurality of different vendors”; and paragraph [0038] disclosing “User 252 can (via XR Device 254) solicit vendor product(s), style(s), and/or decoration(s) (see arrow 270Q). One or more responses from Vendor Marketplace 262 can be sent to User 252 via XR Device 254”; and paragraph [0036] disclosing “User 252 can provide (see arrow 270F) input preferences to Preference Adaptation 258” and “User 252 can visually inspect a room”; and paragraph [0036] disclosing “Preference Adaptation 258 can communicate with Structure Synthesis 260 to iteratively derive new model matching style”).
Although Zavesky discloses receiving data of a target space that is captured by a camera, and that Zavesky does not disclose a measurement of the space. Zavesky does not disclose:
data resulting from measuring the target space;
applied laws and ordnances are searched;
generates sample 2D drawings based on the result of the search;
Murphy, however, does teach:
data resulting from measuring the target space (Murphy, see: paragraph [0009] teaching “uses AI to auto-detect, measure…components of building plans…relating to building design are in compliance with a relevant code according to the AHJ”; and see: paragraph [0093] teaching “a value for distance measurement” and “area 144 may be indicted as square feet, square meters, square yards, or other designated measurement unit for area”);
applied laws and ordnances are searched (Murphy, see: paragraph [0008] teaching “analyzing two-dimensional (sometimes referred to as “2D”) documents…to make sure that the design plans are in compliance with requirements set forth by a authority having jurisdiction (“AHJ”)”; and see: paragraph [0075] teaching “a user may specify a set of codes” and “for example, a drop down menu may indicate available codes”; and see: paragraph [0093] teaching “values for variables used in AI engine processes to determine whether a design plan is in compliance with a set of required code parameters and/or best practices”; and see: paragraph [0163] teaching “The databases associated with the systems may associate a geolocation with a set of codes, standards and the like and review the discovered design elements for compliance”).
generates drawings based on the result of the search (Murphy, see: paragraph [0075] teaching “a user may specify a set of codes” and “for example, a drop down menu may indicate available codes” and “a user may select one or more sets of codes to apply to the floor plan”; and paragraph [0081] teaching “a conclusion of whether a design plan is in compliance may be displayed as a user interface in an integrated fashion in relation to a replication of the two-dimensional reference (such as the design plan, architectural floor plan or technical drawing)”; and see: paragraph [0163] teaching “The databases associated with the systems may associate a geolocation with a set of codes, standards and the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zavesky to include the features data resulting from measuring the target space, applied laws and ordnances are searched, and generates sample 2D drawings based on the result of the search, as taught by Murphy. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Zavesky, to improve the analysis of a physical space and ensuring that requirements of the space are met (Murphy, see: paragraph [0003]).
Claim 3-
Zavesky in view of Murphy teach the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Zavesky discloses wherein the fourth step where user preference information is analyzed using GANs, and further comprises at least one of designing spaces, arranging furniture, and providing visualizations (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “operate on an interior (e.g., inside room)” and “can comprise product offerings (e.g., furniture and/or accessories)” and “can operate on 2D and/or 3D floor plans” and “the Preference Adaptation 258 can utilize a GAN” and paragraph [0039] disclosing “system can be trained for objects (e.g., furniture, finishes, appliance, etc.)”; and paragraph [0040] disclosing “the system can optionally be used to locally move objects”).
Claim 7-
Zavesky in view of Murphy teach the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Zavesky discloses further comprising a training step to train GANs before the first step (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0087] disclosing “examples of real objects and real wall structures to train a GAN”).
Claim 9-
Zavesky discloses a device of offering recommendation on interior decoration using generative adversarial networks (GANs) (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0021] disclosing “GAN models and/or suggestions can follow, for example, constraints of existing house framework” and see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “can operate on an interior”) comprises the following:
a) a data-receiving unit configured to receive user preference, or requirements, and the data resulting from a space using a user terminal camera (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “User 252 can provide (see arrow 270F) input preferences to Preference Adaptation 258” and “XR Device 254 can communicate with Geometry Understanding 256 (see arrow 2701) to facilitate generation of a new 3D model from camera” Also see paragraph [0039] and FIG. 2B);
b) an interior decoration constitution unit configured to detect objects essential to the interior decoration from the data and to analyze user preference with the help of the GANs to generate interior decoration designs by themes to arrange and provide the user with each decoration element in the space (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “can operate on 2D [i.e., plane view]…floor plans” and [0039] disclosing “the system can extract cues (e.g., geometric objects and configurations)” and “geometry scanning and object detection” and “can…be integrated for a more cohesive (whole home remodel) model” Also see paragraph [0049] describing the method for decorating a space by utilizing user decorating preferences that are stored.),
wherein the interior decoration constitution unit by analyzing user preference with the help of the GANs and subsequently derives sample 2D drawings, which are then rendered as 3D models (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0021] disclosing “include 2D and/or 3D generative models, e.g., 2D-GAN and/or 3D-GAN (generative adversarial network), for fast remodeling synthesis based on scanning of current room and design preference (e.g. styles)”; and see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “operate on an interior (e.g., inside room)” and “can comprise product offerings (e.g., furniture and/or accessories)” and “can operate on 2D and/or 3D floor plans” and “the Preference Adaptation 258 can utilize a GAN”; and
wherein thematic interior decoration designs intended for arranging each interior decoration element in the space are generated, and the user is provided with corresponding visualizations (Zavesky, see: paragraph; and paragraph [0036] disclosing “Device 254 can communicate with Geometry Understanding 256 (see arrow 2701) to facilitate generation of a new 3D model from camera” and paragraph [0040] disclosing “the system can optionally be used to locally move objects” [0045] disclosing “decorating style preference of a user can comprise: one or more high-level textual/conceptual descriptions (e.g. pre-existing labels from a taxonomy of visual descriptors, such as “beach”, “mountain”, “forest”); and see: paragraph [0088] disclosing “a style GAN that can map from a user's 3D and/or 2D structure to objects that have properties matching the user's preferred style”);
c) a sale environment provision unit configured to provide a user terminal with a service environment, in which a partner company server offers goods that match the interior decoration elements selected in the user terminal (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “the Vendor Marketplace 262 can comprise product offerings (e.g., furniture and/or accessories) from a plurality of different vendors”; and paragraph [0038] disclosing “User 252 can (via XR Device 254) solicit vendor product(s), style(s), and/or decoration(s) (see arrow 270Q). One or more responses from Vendor Marketplace 262 can be sent to User 252 via XR Device 254”; and paragraph [0036] disclosing “User 252 can provide (see arrow 270F) input preferences to Preference Adaptation 258” and “User 252 can visually inspect a room”; and paragraph [0036] disclosing “Preference Adaptation 258 can communicate with Structure Synthesis 260 to iteratively derive new model matching style”)..
Although Zavesky discloses receiving data of a target space that is captured by a camera, Zavesky does not disclose a measurement of the space. Zavesky does not disclose:
data resulting from measuring the space;
searches applied laws and ordinances,
Murphy, however, does teach:
data resulting from measuring the space (Murphy, see: paragraph [0009] teaching “uses AI to auto-detect, measure…components of building plans…relating to building design are in compliance with a relevant code according to the AHJ”; and see: paragraph [0093] teaching “a value for distance measurement” and “area 144 may be indicted as square feet, square meters, square yards, or other designated measurement unit for area”);
searches applied laws and ordinances (Murphy, see: paragraph [0075] teaching “a user may specify a set of codes” and “for example, a drop down menu may indicate available codes” and “a user may select one or more sets of codes to apply to the floor plan”; and paragraph [0081] teaching “a conclusion of whether a design plan is in compliance may be displayed as a user interface in an integrated fashion in relation to a replication of the two-dimensional reference (such as the design plan, architectural floor plan or technical drawing)”; and see: paragraph [0163] teaching “The databases associated with the systems may associate a geolocation with a set of codes, standards and the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zavesky to include the feature of data resulting from measuring the space, as taught by Murphy. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Zavesky, to improve the analysis of a physical space and ensuring that requirements of the space are met (Murphy, see: paragraph [0003]).
Claim 11-
Zavesky in view of Murphy teach the device of Claim 9, as described above.
Zavesky discloses wherein the interior decoration constitution unit analyzes user preferences and then designs spaces, arranges furniture, and provides visualizations based on the requirements (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “operate on an interior (e.g., inside room)” and “can comprise product offerings (e.g., furniture and/or accessories)” and “can operate on 2D and/or 3D floor plans” and “the Preference Adaptation 258 can utilize a GAN” and paragraph [0039] disclosing “system can be trained for objects (e.g., furniture, finishes, appliance, etc.)”; and paragraph [0040] disclosing “the system can optionally be used to locally move objects”).
Claim 12-
Zavesky in view of Murphy teach the device of Claim 9, as described above.
Zavesky discloses wherein the interior decoration constitution unit by analyzing user preference with the help of GANs and subsequently derives sample 2D drawings, which are then rendered as 3D models; and wherein thematic interior decoration designs intended for arranging each interior decoration element in the space are generated, and the user is provided with corresponding visualizations (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0021] disclosing “include 2D and/or 3D generative models, e.g., 2D-GAN and/or 3D-GAN (generative adversarial network), for fast remodeling synthesis based on scanning of current room and design preference (e.g. styles)”; and see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “Device 254 can communicate with Geometry Understanding 256 (see arrow 2701) to facilitate generation of a new 3D model from camera” and paragraph [0040] disclosing “the system can optionally be used to locally move objects”) (Examiner’s note: The claim has been interpreted as indicated in the 112(b) rejection above.).
Zavesky does not disclose:
searches applied laws and ordinances;
Murphy, however, does teach:
searches applied laws and ordinances (Murphy, see: paragraph [0009] teaching “uses AI to auto-detect, measure…components of building plans…relating to building design are in compliance with a relevant code [i.e., laws and ordinances] according to the AHJ”; and see: paragraph [0093] teaching “a value for distance measurement” and “area 144 may be indicted as square feet, square meters, square yards, or other designated measurement unit for area”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zavesky to include the feature of applied laws and ordnances, as taught by Murphy. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Zavesky, to improve the analysis of a physical space and ensuring that requirements of the space are met (Murphy, see: paragraph [0003]).
Claim 15-
Zavesky in view of Murphy teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Zavesky discloses a non-transitory recording medium, which a program uses to carry out the method of offering recommendation on interior decoration using GANs according to Claim 1, is contained (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0105] disclosing “Computer-readable storage media”).
Claims 2, 5-6, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavesky, E., et al., in view of Murphy, P., et al., and Williams, A., et al. (PGP No. US 2021/0224934 A1).
Claim 2-
Zavesky in view of Murphy to teach method of Claim 1, as described above.
Zavesky discloses
further comprising providing the user terminal when the device of offering recommendation on interior decoration receives the user requirements from the user terminal (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “system 250 can include XR Device 254 [i.e., user terminal] (which can be used by User 252”; and [0036] disclosing “User 252 can provide (see arrow 270F) input preferences to Preference Adaptation 258”).
Zavesky does not disclose:
providing a blockchain coin;
Williams, however, does teach:
providing a blockchain coin (Williams, see: paragraph [0039] teaching “a blockchain transaction associated with the residence” and “platform unit values may be cryptocurrency values (e.g., bitcoin values), or other digital currency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zavesky to include the feature of providing a blockchain coin, as taught by Williams. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Zavesky, to provide a more streamlined approach for home services and reduce cost to the user or reduce the risk of loss of profit or equity (Williams, see: paragraphs [0004]-[0006]).
Claim 5-
Zavesky in view of Murphy teach the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Zavesky further discloses wherein the fifth step in which vendor is obtained from the partner company server after providing it with user preference information (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0032] disclosing “depicts three vendors (Vendor 1-208A; Vendor 2-208B; Vendor N-208C)” and “any desired number of vendors may utilize the system as described herein. In one specific example: Vendor 1-208A uses a computer (e.g., a server)”).
Zavesky does not disclose:
the blockchain coin;
Williams, however, does teach:
the blockchain coin (Williams, see: paragraph [0039] teaching “a blockchain transaction associated with the residence” and “platform unit values may be cryptocurrency values (e.g., bitcoin values), or other digital currency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zavesky to include the feature of a blockchain coin, as taught by Williams. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Zavesky, to provide a more streamlined approach for home services and reduce cost to the user or reduce the risk of loss of profit or equity (Williams, see: paragraphs [0004]-[0006]).
Claim 6-
Zavesky in view of Murphy teach the method of Claim 1, as described above.
Zavesky discloses wherein the fifth step in which the user terminal provides the partner company server with the user terminal (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0032] disclosing “depicts three vendors (Vendor 1-208A; Vendor 2-208B; Vendor N-208C)” and “any desired number of vendors may utilize the system as described herein. In one specific example: Vendor 1-208A uses a computer (e.g., a server)”).
Zavesky does not disclose:
the cost of the goods in the blockchain coin, and the user terminal registers an afternote and the grade of the goods with the company server using a dispersion-type published ledger;
Williams, however, does teach:
the cost of the goods in the blockchain coin, and the user terminal registers an afternote and the grade of the goods with the company server using a dispersion-type published ledger (Williams, see: paragraph [0014] teaching “residence provisioning platform may track the maintenance…review services”; and [0070] teaching “The blockchain may comprise a set of ‘completed’ blocks of transactions that are recorded and added in a chronological order”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zavesky to include the feature of the cost of the goods in the blockchain coin, and the user terminal registers an afternote and the grade of the goods with the company server using a dispersion-type published ledger, as taught by Williams. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Zavesky, to provide a more streamlined approach for home services and reduce cost to the user or reduce the risk of loss of profit or equity (Williams, see: paragraphs [0004]-[0006]).
Claim 10-
Zavesky in view of Murphy teach the device of Claim 9, as described above.
Zavesky discloses further comprises a processing unit configured to provide the user terminal when user preference information is received from the user terminal (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “system 250 can include XR Device 254 [i.e., user terminal] (which can be used by User 252”; and [0036] disclosing “User 252 can provide (see arrow 270F) input preferences to Preference Adaptation 258”).
Zavesky does not disclose:
a coin;
a blockchain coin;
Williams, however, does teach:
a coin (Williams, see: paragraph [0039] teaching “a blockchain transaction associated with the residence” and “platform unit values may be cryptocurrency values (e.g., bitcoin values), or other digital currency”);
a blockchain coin (Williams, see: paragraph [0039] teaching “a blockchain transaction associated with the residence” and “platform unit values may be cryptocurrency values (e.g., bitcoin values), or other digital currency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zavesky to include the feature of a coin and a blockchain coin, as taught by Williams. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Zavesky, to provide a more streamlined approach for home services and reduce cost to the user or reduce the risk of loss of profit or equity (Williams, see: paragraphs [0004]-[0006]).
Claim 13-
Zavesky in view of Murphy teaches as part of the device of Claim 12, as described above.
Zavesky discloses the processing unit receives from the partner company server after providing it with user preference information (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0032] disclosing “depicts three vendors (Vendor 1-208A; Vendor 2-208B; Vendor N-208C)” and “any desired number of vendors may utilize the system as described herein. In one specific example: Vendor 1-208A uses a computer (e.g., a server)”).
Zavesky does not disclose:
the coin;
the blockchain coin;
Williams, however, does teach:
the coin (Williams, see: paragraph [0039] teaching “a blockchain transaction associated with the residence” and “platform unit values may be cryptocurrency values (e.g., bitcoin values), or other digital currency”);
the blockchain coin (Williams, see: paragraph [0039] teaching “a blockchain transaction associated with the residence” and “platform unit values may be cryptocurrency values (e.g., bitcoin values), or other digital currency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zavesky to include the feature of the coin and the blockchain coin, as taught by Williams. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Zavesky, to provide a more streamlined approach for home services and reduce cost to the user or reduce the risk of loss of profit or equity (Williams, see: paragraphs [0004]-[0006]).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavesky, E., et al., in view of Murphy, P., et al., and Fu, Y., et al. (PGP No. US 2019/0295302 A1).
Claim 8-
Zavesky in view of Murphy teach the method of Claim 7, as described above.
Zavesky discloses wherein the training step involves a network which is trained using a style dataset, in which the interior decoration designs are sorted by theme, and a location dataset, in which the interior decoration designs are sorted by location (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0045] disclosing “decorating style preference of a user can comprise: one or more high-level textual/conceptual descriptions (e.g. pre-existing labels from a taxonomy of visual descriptors [i.e., theme], such as “beach”, “mountain”, “forest”) [i.e., location dataset]”; and see: paragraph [0088] disclosing “a style GAN that can map from a user's 3D and/or 2D structure to objects that have properties matching the user's preferred style”).
Zavesky does not disclose:
a conditional generative adversarial network (CGAN),
Fu, however, does teach:
a conditional generative adversarial network (CGAN) (Fu, see: paragraph [0035] teaching “Image-to-Image translation aims to map an image in a source domain to the corresponding image” and “using conditional generative adversarial networks”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zavesky to include the feature of a conditional generative adversarial network, as taught by Fu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Zavesky, to improve generation of images that contain desired attributes of a target area (Fu, see: at least paragraph [0046]).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 112(b), the Applicant’s remarks filed on 05 August 2025, have been fully considered, and in light of the Applicant’s amendments, the 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 05 August 2025, have been fully considered and agrees in part. Particularly, the Examiner agrees with the remark on page 8 of arguments, that in regards to Claim 15, “Claim 15 has been amended by including ‘non-transitory’ before computer storage medium,” and therefore the claim now recites language that is directed to statutory subject matter. As indicated in the Office action above, the rejection now states that the claim is directed to statutory subject matter. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the remaining arguments regarding 101.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 9 and 12-13 of the remarks stating that “as clearly stated step two of claim 1, receiving data resulting from measuring a target space using a user terminal camera,” and “Receiving data from measuring real target space using a user terminal camera, thus, it is real data receiving from a user terminal camera, which cannot be performed by a human mind. Thus, it is not merely abstract idea,” and on pages 12-13 “generating sample 2D drawings based on the result of the search and providing 3D models based on the sample 2D drawings, which is not merely an abstract idea, but these steps individually and in combination as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to an abstract idea of offering a recommendation. It is noted that the abstract idea of offering a recommendation was not indicated as to falling into the enumerated grouping of a mental process. The abstract idea in this case, falls into the enumerated subgrouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, where the activities recited in the claims are related to sales activities or behaviors. For example, the claims specifically recite the steps of receiving data of measurements of a target space, receiving user preference data, detecting the plane view and objects that are essential to the interior decoration, analyzing user preferences to generate themes of interior decoration designs, providing the user with visuals where the laws and ordinances are searched to provide a 3D model based on a 2D sample drawing, creating interior decoration designs by the them and arranging the decorations in the space, and then providing the user with a company that can offer goods that match the interior decoration elements that are selected. Further, under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea. Although the claims do recite additional elements including the generative adversarial networks (GANs) used in a device, the user terminal, the user terminal camera, using GANs, with the help of GANs, the user terminal, server, and the user terminal, and when considering the claimed additional elements in combination and individually, are still recited in a generic manner and are being used to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. When considering that the claims also include the generative adversarial networks, the recited feature does not include details as to how the networks are actually functioning beyond known functions. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea and that the claims as a whole do not recite steps sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus, maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 05 August 2025 have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 14-15 of the remarks stating “Zavesky” and “fails to disclose ‘how to generate sample 2D drawings based on the result of the search and provide 3D models based on the sample 2D drawings’ as recited in claim 1” and “does not use real measured information using a user terminal camera and user preference information,” and further “Zavesky and Murphy fails to teach or suggest the features as recited in claim 1,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even when considering the amendments to the claims, the references of Zavesky in view of Murphy teach the limitations of the claims. For example, first Zavesky does disclose generating 3D models using generative adversarial networks, which is based on scanning or analyzing an interior of a room, which can include the products offered within the room interior, such as furniture, accessories, etc., while taking into account the layout of the room space (Zavesky, paragraphs [0021] and [0035]). The system of Zavesky, utilizing GANs can generate a new 3D model from the captured images of a user’s camera, which encompasses the providing of 3D modes based on sample 2D drawings in a space, as an image captured would not yet be capable of being a 3-dimensional model (Zavesky, paragraph [0036]). Further, Zavesky is capable of facilitating the new 3D model an allows the movement and manipulation of objects in the interior of the room space of the model, where decorating styles and preferences are also considered when generating the 3D model, such as visual descriptions of a theme like a beach, a mountain theme, or forest setting (Zavesky, see: paragraph [0045] and [0088]), which encompasses the claimed creating interior decoration designs by themes to arrange each interior decoration element in the space. Although Zavesky does not specifically say there is a search feature for ordinances and laws by analyzing user preference to generate a drawing, Zavesky does specifically say that the system is capable of scanning and analyzing the space to determine space of an interior room, accounting for the objects and decorations within the space, and able to generate 3D models from the 2D images provided (Zavesky paragraphs [0035]-[0036], and [0088]). Since Zavesky provides the analyzing and scanning of the interior room, taking into consideration the user preferences, to generate the model, the reference of Murphy is relied upon to teach the features of data resulting from measuring the target space, applied laws and ordnances are searched, and the step of generates drawings based on the result of the search. For example, Murphy describes a system using AI to automatically detect and measure building plans and layouts in order to determine compliance of codes and standards for specific locations of the structure (Murphy, see: paragraphs [0091] and [0093]). Murphy describes the ability for a user to input specific codes they are interested in determining the compliance, where the user can select specific codes and standards from a drop down menu indicating the available codes to look up (Murphy, see: paragraph [0075]), encompassing the searched applied laws and ordinances. Further, Murphy details the generation of floor plans, which would be a 2D rendering based on the specific code and standards inquired about that was selected by the user (Murphy, see: paragraphs [0075] and [0081]), encompassing the claimed drawings based on the result of the search. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the references of Zavesky in view of Murphy still teach the amended limitations, and thus, the 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Frey, C., et al. (US Patent No. 11,748,964 B2), describes a method for determining at least one region in at least one input model for at least one element to be placed including the steps: receiving an input data set including the at least one element to be placed, a plurality of conditions; the at least one input model; determining at least one appurtenant condition from the plur