DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 12/20/2022 . Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim s 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph . Claims 1-10, 13-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. US 20130120368 A1 by Miller; Tyler et al. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. US 20130120368 A1 by Miller; Tyler et al. , in view of NPL by Ma et al (“ A database approach for information communication in a peer-to-peer collaborative CAD environment ” Softw : Pract . Exper ., 37: 1193-1213 ) . Claim(s) 11,12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. US 20130120368 A1 by Miller; Tyler et al., in view of NPL by Heydarian , Arsalan, et al. "Lights, building, action: Impact of default lighting settings on occupant behaviour ." Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016): 212-223. This action is made Non-Final . ---- This page is left blank after this line ---- Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention not directed to any of the statutory categories. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. In this case the claim 14 is directed to a suite of computer programs which is software per se. ---- This page is left blank after this line ---- Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim s 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically the claim 11-12 and 20 recites: 11. (Currently Amended) The system according to claim 10, wherein the second design application is configured, at runtime, to: export geometric data, or geometric data and material data, describing the at least one 3D model of the second design defined by the representation of the second design to a lightmapping application , the lightmapping application configured to generate lighting data for application to said at least one 3D model ; and import the lighting data and apply lighting to said at least one 3D model based on the lighting data. 12. (Original) The system according to claim 11, wherein the second design application is configured, at runtime, to trigger, upon receipt of an initial definition from the first design application for generation of the representation of the second design,: generation of the representation of the second design based on the initial definition at least partly by procedural generation; the export of the geometric data, or the geometric data and the material data; and the import of the lighting data and application of the lighting to said at least one 3D model based on the lighting data. 20. (New) The system according to claim 11, further comprising displaying said lighting when displaying the second design by 3D rendering, wherein the second design is a 3D data representation comprises or references a 3D data file or another 3D data representation, defining a 3D environment comprising at least one 3D model, and wherein the system comprises the lightmapping application and the lightmapping application is configured to run on a computer of the system; the geometric data defines the geometry of the at least one 3D model of the second design; the material data defines materials of surfaces of the at least one 3D model of the second design; and/or applying lighting to said at least one 3D model based on the lighting data comprises, at runtime, baking or incorporating the lighting data into textures which are applied to surfaces of said at least one 3D model when displaying the second design by 3D rendering. Specification recites claim language if not verbatim, but in similar words related to lightmapping application, but fails to show what is lightmapping application and how it performs the claimed steps. See Specification paragraphs identified below: In view of above it is unclear how the rendering (generating lighting data & its application) is accomplished and therefore the claims 11-12 and 20 are considered as lacking written description. ---- This page is left blank after this line ---- Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites: (Original) A computing system for design development comprising at least one computer, wherein: a browser is configured to run on a given computer of the system as a native application of said given computer; a first design application is configured to run within the browser and handle a representation of a first design; a second design application is configured to run on said given computer or on another computer of the system as a native application of the computer concerned [A] and handle a representation of a second design; at least one of the first and second design applications is configured, at runtime and in real time as a user of that one of those applications updates the representation of the design of that one of those applications to update that design, to communicate the update via a server to the other one of those applications [B] ; and at least the other one of the first and second design applications is configured, at runtime and in real time as the update is received, to apply the update to the representation of the design of that other one of those applications to update that design. As per [A], it is unclear what is the antecedent basis for the computer concerned and which of the two comp uters (a given computer or another computer) is the computer concerned. As per [B], similar to [A] it is unclear which application is updated. Claims 14 and 15 recite similar limitations and are rejected likewise. Respective dependent claims 2-13, 16-20 are rejected for not curing this deficiency. Claim 3 recites: …. wherein: the first design application is configured, based on the representation of the first design, to generate an initial definition for the second design application to employ to generate the representation of the second design so that the second design corresponds to or is substantially the same as the first design , and to communicate the initial definition to the second application via the server and/or via the established connection; and the second design application is configured to generate the representation of the second design based on the initial definition such that the second design corresponds to or is substantially the same as the first design. Neither the claim nor the specification discloses what is considered “substantially the same”. Therefore the claim without proper metes and bounds of what is considered substantially the same, is considered as indefinite. Claim 4 recites the limitation “procedural generation”, however it neither clear from the claims nor the specification what is procedural generation. Claim 7 recited the limitation “the second design application comprises said server”, however it is unclear how the design application (software) comprises a server (hardware)? The claim does not define if the server is software or hardware. Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). ---- This page is left blank after this line ---- Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-10, 13-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. US 20130120368 A1 by Miller; Tyler et al. Regarding Claim s 1 , 14 & 15 Miller teaches (Claim 1 ) A computing system for design development comprising at least one computer ( Miller : Fig.1 [0029] -[ 0038]) , wherein: (Claim 14) A suite of computer programs for design development ( Miller : Fig.2A & [0032] "... The program storage 34 also may store a 3D modeling software module, such as a collaborative 3D modeling client 52 that executes in the browser application 50 to develop 3D models of various objects independently at the client device 12 or in collaboration with one or more client devices. ..." ) , the suite comprising: (Claim 15) A computer-implemented method for design development ( Miller : [0010] & Figs.8-13 showing various aspects of design update and collaboration) , comprising: a browser is configured to run on a given computer of the system as a native application of said given computer ( Miller : [0029]-[0030]; natively [0028] "... to operate as a part of a web browser application , the 3D modeling software module includes components to display a user interface via a window controlled by the browser application or otherwise via the browser application, the networking functions of the client device on which the browser application executes, the graphics functions provided by the browser application or an extension/plugin of the browser application. To support real-time collaborative development, the modeling software includes a collaboration module that may be implemented as a compiled software module, a script interpreted at runtime , a combination of compiled and scripted instructions, etc. The collaboration module may report the modifications to, and receive indications of modifications at other client devices from a modeling server that operates in a communication network. ..." ) ; a first design application is configured to run within the browser and handle a representation of a first design ( Miller : [0028] [0029] first design application being browser executed on (first) client device 12 "... Referring to FIG. 1, techniques for browser-based collaborative modeling can be implemented in a communication system 10, for example. I n an embodiment, the communication system 10 includes a client device 12 , another client device 14 that operates independently of the client device 12, and a communication network 16 to which the client devices 12 and 14 are communicatively coupled. Although the client devices 12 and 14 include similar hardware, software, and/or firmware components, the components of only the client device 12 are shown in FIG. 1 for ease of illustration. In operation, a user operating the client device 12 develops a model of an object or a group of objects in collaboration with another user operating the client device 14. ..." ) ; a second design application is configured to run on said given computer or on another computer of the system as a native application of the computer concerned and handle a representation of a second design ( Miller : [0028] [0029] as browser application on second client device 14 which represents second design; [0030]-[0031]) ; at least one of the first and second design applications is configured, at runtime and in real time as a user of that one of those applications updates the representation of the design of that one of those applications to update that design ( Miller : [0028] "... to operate as a part of a web browser application , the 3D modeling software module includes components to display a user interface via a window controlled by the browser application or otherwise via the browser application, the networking functions of the client device on which the browser application executes, the graphics functions provided by the browser application or an extension/plugin of the browser application. To support real-time collaborative development, the modeling software includes a collaboration module that may be implemented as a compiled software module, a script interpreted at runtime .. ” [0029] -[0034] for second client device 14 as second client device being updated in real time; [0078] showing lock-free real-time updates as OT techniques for updates from one application (client device 12) to another application (client device 14) ) , to communicate the update via a server to the other one of those applications ( Miller : Figs.1, 3, 7, [0052][0078]; see e,g . in Fig.7 update via server 506) ; and at least the other one of the first and second design applications is configured, at runtime and in real time as the update is received, to apply the update to the representation of the design of that other one of those applications to update that design ( Miller : [0049] "... he collaboration function 180 may include a function for generating a description of the modifications applied to the component that is compatible with an operational transformation (OT). Generally speaking, OT techniques allow client devices to modify the same component in parallel and in real time without locking the component . Because the component may be in different states at different devices, modifications of a component at a client device are described in terms of operations that are then transformed, as necessary, at another client device to ensure that the operations are applied to the component consistently...." ). Claim 15 additionally recites: wherein: the first design application is a network-deployed design application ( Miller : [0028] -[ 0029]) ; and the method comprises employing the browser to download source code for the first design application from an external repository via a network and to compile the source code to generate the first design application ( Miller : [0032] "... For example, the modeling client 52 may be downloaded from the modeling server 18 each time a user develops a 3D model at the client device 12. To this end, the modeling server 18 may include tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium on which the instructions of the modeling client 52 are stored. ..." ; [ 0050]network ) . Regarding Claim 2 Miller teaches The system according to claim 1, wherein: the first design application is configured to establish a connection to the second design application via the server or the second design application is configured to establish a connection to the first design application via the server ( Miller : Fig.10 , [0045] [0073]-[0080] as invitation process from one client device via server to another client device) ; and the at least one of the first and second design applications is configured to communicate the update to the other one of those applications via the established connection ( Miller : [0078]-[0080] updates/edits sent to other invited devices via server (based on invitation) e.g. process in Fig.7 or the direct updates with OT as described in [0049] ) . Regarding Claim 3 Miller teaches The system according to claim 1, wherein: the first design application is configured, based on the representation of the first design, to generate an initial definition for the second design application to employ to generate the representation of the second design so that the second design corresponds to or is substantially the same as the first design, and to communicate the initial definition to the second application via the server and/or via the established connection ( Miller : Fig.7 [0072]-[0088], Also see [0034][0036][0052][0055] and [0098]) ; and the second design application is configured to generate the representation of the second design based on the initial definition such that the second design corresponds to or is substantially the same as the first design ( Miller : Fig.7 [0072]-[0088], Also see [0034][0036][0052][0055] and [0098]) . Regarding Claim 4 Miller teaches The system according to claim 3, wherein the second design application is configured to generate the representation of the second design at runtime at least partly by procedural generation based on the initial definition ( Miller : e.g. as in Fig.7 procedure & [0027] "... The modeling software also allows the user to rotate a 3D model displayed in a browser application window, change the angle and the distance of the viewpoint relative to the model, and otherwise control the manner in which the model is rendered on a user interface of the client device. During a collaborative development session, the modeling software receives user commands via the browser application for modifying the 3D model, generates a representation of the desired modifications (also referred to below as "mutations" of the model), and causes the modifications to the 3D model to be synchronized with one or more client devices...." ). Regarding Claim 5 Miller teaches The system according to claim1, wherein the first design application is configured to initiate launch of the second design application via the server ( Miller : [0078]-[0080] updates/edits sent to other invited devices via server (based on invitation) e.g. process in Fig.7 or the direct updates with OT as described in [0049]; the invitation process is understood as launch of browser based application on second device; [0078] "... , the modeling client 52 may automatically prompt Bob to download and install the collaboration API. ..." ) . Regarding Claim 6 Miller teaches The system according to, wherein: the first design application is a network-deployed design application ( Miller : [0028] as compiled collaborative development environment ) ; and the browser is configured to download source code for the first design application from an external repository via a network and to compile the source code to generate the first design application ( Miller : Fig.2C & [0050]; [0078] ) . Regarding Claim 7 Miller teaches The system according to any of the preceding claimsclaim1, wherein: the second design application comprises said server; said server is separate from the second design application; or said another computer of the system is or comprises said server and the second design application is configured to run on that computer as a client of the server ( Miller teaches : Fig.3 showing client devices 252, 254 and server 256 ) . Regarding Claim 8 Miller teaches The system according to claim1, wherein: the system is for 3D design development ( Miller : [0104] -[ 0108]) ; and the first and second designs are 3D designs, such as designs for a room such as a kitchen ( Miller : [0103] "... [0103] By way of a more specific example, users Abe and Bob may be editing a model of a kitchen that includes a refrigerator. ..." ) . Regarding Claim 9 Miller teaches The system according to claim 1 , wherein: the first design application is a 2D design application ( Miller : [0027] "... The 3D modeling software module (or simply "the modeling software") generally allows the user to create and edit 3D models of buildings, vehicles, items of furniture, and other objects using various controls, provided via the browser application, for manipulating component 3D shapes and/or 2D faces, defining interactions between the components, grouping the components into composite components , etc. ..." ; [0065]) ; the representation of the first design is a 2D data representation, optionally comprising or referencing a 2D data file or another 2D data representation ( Miller : [0038] "... For example, the browser application 50 may support HTML 5, and the modeling client 52 (or web content that includes a 3D model) may generate a Canvas element within which the modeling client 52 may generate 3D shapes using 2D graphics primitives provided by HTML 5. ..." ) ; and the first design application is configured to display the first design based on the representation of the first design by 2D rendering, vector-based rendering and/or canvas rendering ( Miller : [0038] [0065] ) . Regarding Claim 10 Miller teaches The system according to claim 1 , wherein: the second design application is a 3D design application ( Miller : [0029]-[0038]) ; the representation of the second design is a 3D data representation, optionally comprising or referencing a 3D data file or another 3D data representation, defining a 3D environment comprising at least one 3D model ( Miller : [0029]-[0038]) ; and the second design application is configured to display the second design based on the representation of the second design by 3D rendering ( Miller : [0029]-[0038] ; [0035] "... The modeling client 52 may interpret the model data 54 to render the corresponding 3D model in an image format, such as a raster format ..." ) . Regarding Claim 13 Miller teaches the system according to claim 1 , comprising: a first display or display portion ( Miller : [0051] & Fig.2D with 3D graphics display; Fig.1 showing first device/display 42, [0031] ) ; and a second display or display portion ( Miller : [0051] & Fig.2D with 3D graphics display ; [0029] "... Although the client devices 12 and 14 include similar hardware, software, and/or firmware components, the components of only the client device 12 are shown in FIG. 1 for ease of illustration. ..." ) , wherein: the first design application is configured in real time to display the first design on the first display or display portion based on the representation of the first design ( Miller : Fig.7; [0051] rendering via 242 & 244) ; and the second design application is configured in real time to display the second design on the second display or display portion based on the representation of the second design ( Miller : Fig.7 [0051] rendering via 242 & 244) . Regarding Claim 16 Miller teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein said established connection comprises: a bidirectional or duplex connection; and/or a persistent connection, such as a WebSocket connection ( Miller : [0041] e.g. websocket as SSL connection ) . Regarding Claim 18 Miller teaches the system according to claim 7, wherein said server is separate from the computer configured to run the second design application ( Miller : Fig.3 server separate from second design application (client device 2 (254) with browser 280) ) . Regarding Claim 19 Miller teaches the system according to claim 9, wherein the representation of the first design comprises a 2D data file or another 2D data representation ( Miller teaches the : [0027] [ 0038][ 0044][0059][0065]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries 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 . 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. Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. US 20130120368 A1 by Miller; Tyler et al., in view of NPL by Ma et al (“A database approach for information communication in a peer-to-peer collaborative CAD environment” Softw : Pract . Exper ., 37: 1193-1213). Regarding Claim 17 Teachings of Miller are shown in the parent claim 1 & 5. Although Miller teaches to initiate launch in second design application via a invitation sent through the server (See mapping of claim 5) , it does not teach link is Magnet Link. Ma teaches the system according to claim 5, wherein the first design application is configured to initiate launch of the second design application via the server via a Magnet link as peer-to-peer data communication approach (Ma: §3 “ THE ACTIVE PEER-TO-PEER APPROACH FOR DATA COMMUNICATION ” – which shows registering the CAD clients for direct communication using peer-to-peer (P2P) based communication; See Fig.1). It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ma (2007) to Miller (2013) as P2P communication would be ideal and would complement Miller’s teaching when the one of the embodiments states that model data is stored locally on the client devices (Miller: [0101] "... according to the technique of FIG. 11, operations reported by a client device are not necessarily applied to a centrally maintained copy of the model. Instead, in at least some of the embodiments, the operations are forwarded to participating client devices as appropriate, and the client devices apply these operations to respective local copies of model data. ..." [0078] "... However, in other embodiments, the modeling server 18 does not maintain a master copy, and each of the client devices 12 and 14 locally manages a local copy of the model data 62. ..." ) . The direct local to local update is similar to P2P and process describe in Ma would implement the one of the Miller’s embodiments as mapped above. Further motivation to combine would have been that Ma and Miller are analogous art to the instant claim in the field of distributed decentralized CAD design ( Ma: Abstract: Miller: [0101][0078], abstract & Fig.3). ---- This page is left blank after this line ---- Claim(s) 11,12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. US 20130120368 A1 by Miller; Tyler et al., in view of NPL by Heydarian , Arsalan, et al. "Lights, building, action: Impact of default lighting settings on occupant behaviour ." Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016): 212-223. Regarding Claim 11 Teachings of Miller are shown in the parent claim 1. Miller does not teach limitations of this claim. Heydarian teaches wherein the second design application is configured, at runtime, to: export geometric data, or geometric data and material data, describing the at least one 3D model of the second design defined by the representation of the second design to a lightmapping application, the lightmapping application configured to generate lighting data for application to said at least one 3D model ( Heydarian : Export to the said application is imported FIG. 3-4 and Section 4.2 in Pages 216-217: the basic geometry and structure (e.g., walls, floor and ceiling, windows and etc.) of the office space was designed in Revit 2015 (Fig. 3 – box 1a); the Revit model was imported to 3ds Max to optimize the space by adding furniture , materials, and textures to the different objects in the room (Fig. 3 – box 1b); the lighting, reflection, and shadows were also set in 3ds Max for every different combination of daylighting and electric lighting that the participants could possibly choose; to make the models look photorealistic in the IVE; they were rendered to texture in 3ds Max; to achieve this, at first create the UV maps for every object in the office space in 3ds Max; then including materials and textures for every object (e.g., furniture, walls, ceiling, and etc.) in the office by setting up and adding texture/diffuse color channels, normal channels, specular channels, and occlusion channels through 3ds Max and V-Ray rendering engines; lastly rendered to texture all 32 scenes based on their specific lighting settings to ensure the objects look realistic; Fig. 4 shows the workflow as Object (3D Model) Creating UV Maps in FIG. 4 Including Material Render-to-Texture; each rendered 3D model carried a set of light maps that were imported to Unity 3D and were manually assigned to each corresponding scene (Fig. 3 – box 4)) ; and import the lighting data and apply lighting to said at least one 3D model based on the lighting data, and optionally display said lighting when displaying the second design by 3D rendering ( Heydarian : FIG. 3-4 and Section 4.2 in Pages 216-217: the basic geometry and structure (e.g., walls, floor and ceiling, windows and etc.) of the office space was designed in Revit 2015 (Fig. 3 – box 1a); the Revit model was imported to 3ds Max to optimize the space by adding furniture, materials, and textures to the different objects in the room (Fig. 3 – box 1b); the lighting, reflection, and shadows were also set in 3ds Max for every different combination of daylighting and electric lighting that the participants could possibly choose; to make the models look photorealistic in the IVE; they were rendered to texture in 3ds Max; to achieve this, at first create the UV maps for every object in the office space in 3ds Max; then including materials and textures for every object (e.g., furniture, walls, ceiling, and etc.) in the office by setting up and adding texture/diffuse color channels, normal channels, specular channels, and occlusion channels through 3ds Max and V-Ray rendering engines; lastly rendered to texture all 32 scenes based on their specific lighting settings to ensure the objects look realistic; Fig. 4 shows the workflow as Object (3D Model) Creating UV Maps in FIG. 4 Including Material Render-to-Texture; each rendered 3D model carried a set of light maps that were imported to Unity 3D and were manually assigned to each corresponding scene (Fig. 3 – box 4)) . It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Heydarian to Miller with the motivation for doing so as to FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT ensure objects in 3D models look realistic ( Heydarian , 1 st paragraph in Section 4.2 in Page 216) . Regarding Claim 12 Miller teaches The system according to claim 11, wherein the second design application is configured, at runtime, to trigger, upon receipt of an initial definition from the first design application for generation of the representation of the second design ( Miller : Fig.7 see invitation to second device Fig.10 , [0045] [0073]-[0080] as invitation process from one client device via server to another client device ) : generation of the representation of the second design based on the initial definition at least partly by procedural generation ( Miller : e.g. as in Fig.7 procedure & [0027] "... The modeling software also allows the user to rotate a 3D model displayed in a browser application window, change the angle and the distance of the viewpoint relative to the model, and otherwise control the manner in which the model is rendered on a user interface of the client device. During a collaborative development session, the modeling software receives user commands via the browser application for modifying the 3D model, generates a representation of the desired modifications (also referred to below as "mutations" of the model), and causes the modifications to the 3D model to be synchronized with one or more client devices...." ) . Miller does not specifically teach the import and export. Heydarian teaches the export of the geometric data, or the geometric data and the material data; and the import of the lighting data and application of the lighting to said at least one 3D model based on the lighting data ( Heydarian : FIG. 3-4 and Section 4.2 in Pages 216-217: the basic geometry and structure (e.g., walls, floor and ceiling, windows and etc.) of the office space was designed in Revit 2015 (Fig. 3 – box 1a); the Revit model was imported to 3ds Max to optimize the space by adding furniture, materials, and textures to the different objects in the room (Fig. 3 – box 1b); the lighting, reflection, and shadows were also set in 3ds Max for every different combination of daylighting and electric lighting that the participants could possibly choose; to make the models look photorealistic in the IVE, they were rendered to texture in 3ds Max; to achieve this, at first create the UV maps for every object in the office space in 3ds Max; then including materials and textures for every object (e.g., furniture, walls, ceiling, and etc.) in the office by setting up and adding texture/diffuse color channels, normal channels, specular channels, and occlusion channels through 3ds Max and V-Ray rendering engines; lastly rendered to texture all 32 scenes based on their specific lighting settings to ensure the objects look realistic; Fig. 4 shows the workflow (Object (3D Model) Creating UV Maps in FIG. 4 Including Material Render-to-Texture) for adding the materials, textures, and different maps to ensure the 3D model looks realistic; each rendered 3D model carried a set of light maps that were imported to Unity 3D and were manually assigned to each corresponding scene (Fig. 3 – box 4); i.e., lightmapping operation is started before rendering the lighting, reflection, and shadow effects on 3D model) ) . Motivation to combine is same as above. Regarding Claim 20 Miller teaches The system according to claim 11, further comprising displaying said lighting when displaying the second design by 3D rendering, wherein the second design is a 3D data representation comprises or references a 3D data file or another 3D data representation, defining a 3D environment comprising at least one 3D model ( Miller : [0028] "... to operate as a part of a web browser application , the 3D modeling software module includes components to display a user interface via a window controlled by the browser application or otherwise via the browser application, the networking functions of the client device on which the browser application executes, the graphics functions provided by the browser application or an extension/plugin of the browser application. To support real-time collaborative development, the modeling software includes a collaboration module that may be implemented as a compiled software module, a script interpreted at runtime ) , Miller does not teach the limitations below about lightmapping. Heydarian teaches the wherein the system comprises the lightmapping application and the lightmapping application is configured to run on a computer of the system ( Heydarian : FIG. 3-4 and Section 4.2 in Pages 216-217: the basic geometry and structure (e.g., walls, floor and ceiling, windows and etc.) of the office space was designed in Revit 2015 (Fig. 3 – box 1a); the Revit model was imported to 3ds Max to optimize the space by adding furniture, materials, and textures to the different objects in the room (Fig. 3 – box 1b); the lighting, reflection, and shadows were also set in 3ds Max for every different combination of daylighting and electric lighting that the participants could possibly choose; to make the models look photorealistic in the IVE; they were rendered to texture in 3ds Max; to achieve this, at first create the UV maps for every object in the office space in 3ds Max; then including materials and textures for every object (e.g., furniture, walls, ceiling, and etc.) in the office by setting up and adding texture/diffuse color channels, normal channels, specular channels, and occlusion channels through 3ds Max and V-Ray rendering engines; lastly rendered to texture all 32 scenes based on their specific lighting settings to ensure the objects look realistic; Fig. 4 shows the workflow as Object (3D Model) Creating UV Maps in FIG. 4 Including Material Render-to-Texture; each rendered 3D model carried a set of light maps that were imported to Unity 3D and were manually assigned to each corresponding scene (Fig. 3 – box 4)) ; the geometric data defines the geometry of the at least one 3D model of the second design ( Heydarian : Section 4.2 in Pages 216-217: the basic geometry and structure (e.g., walls, floor and ceiling, windows and etc.) of the office space was designed in Revit 2015 (Fig. 3 – box 1a) ) ; the material data defines materials of surfaces of the at least one 3D model of the second design ( Heydarian : Pg.216- "... realistic. Fig. 4 shows our workflow for adding the materials, textures, and different maps to ensure the 3D model looks realistic. ..." ) ; and/or applying lighting to said at least one 3D model based on the lighting data comprises, at runtime, baking or incorporating the lighting data into textures which are applied to surfaces of said at least one 3D model when displaying the second design by 3D rendering ( Heydarian : Pg.216 "...Similar to 3ds Max, we used the V- Rayplugin in Rhino to assign specific materials and settings in our models to ensure the same materials and settings as the 3ds Max's rendered models are used. Additionally, by setting up the scenes adequately both in 3ds Max and Rhino (e.g., use correct scene scale, photometric lights, plausible materials etc. ),... ") . Motivation to combine is same as above. C onclusion All claims are rejected. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner’s Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to 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 or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Relevant Prior Art of Record USPGPUB No. 20200394343 by Barker; Jeremiah Timberline teaches trigger aspects in Fig.3 [0048]-[0049][0055]-[0056] for rendering and may be used in future. ---- This page is left blank after this line ---- Communication Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8351 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT RYAN PITARO can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT AKASH SAXENA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2188 /AKASH SAXENA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Thursday, March 5, 2026