DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 04/17/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2023 and 11/21/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 11-19 are directed to a computer readable medium, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Claim 20 is directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes performed on a computer, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
determining a first set of candidate designs for the construction project (As
drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate a construction project and then determine a first set of candidate designs for the construction project with/without the aid of pen and paper. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the courts don’t distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.);
determining a set of performance metrics and a set of attributes associated
with the set of design options (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate a set of design options and then determine a set of performance metrics and a set of attributes associated with the set of design options with/without the aid of pen and paper. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the courts don’t distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.);
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
for each candidate design included in the first set of candidate designs: generating a set of design options based on one or more portions of the candidate design (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation fails to recite details of how a set of design options are generated. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".);
generating a second set of candidate designs for the construction project based on the sets of design options associated with the first set of candidate designs, the sets of performance metrics associated with the sets of design options, and the sets of attributes associated with the sets of design options (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation fails to recite details of how a second set of candidate designs are generated. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “[t]he recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".”
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claims 11 and 20 recite substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to amount to significantly more.
Claim 2 recites wherein determining the first set of candidate designs comprises iteratively assigning one or more sets of cells included in a candidate design to one or more building modules based on one or more rules associated with one or more example candidate designs. The additional element elaborates on the determination of the first set of candidate designs, thus further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) performed on a computer. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 recites further comprising initializing the set of design options based on input parameters that include the one or more portions of the candidate design. The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation fails to recite details of how the set of design options are initialized. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 recites wherein generating the set of design options comprises at least one of: determining a first portion of the candidate design to include in the set of design options; or determining a second portion of the candidate design to exclude from the first portion of the candidate design. The additional elements amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine a first portion of the candidate design and/or a second portion of the candidate design to exclude from the first portion of the candidate design with/without the aid of pen and paper. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the courts don’t distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5, the method of claim 4, recites wherein determining the first portion of the candidate design comprises adding one or more cells from the candidate design to a set of fixed cells used to initialize generation of the candidate design. The additional element elaborates on determining the first portion of the candidate design, thus further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6, the method of claim 4, recites wherein determining the second portion of the candidate design comprises removing one or more cells from a set of fixed cells used to initialize generation of the candidate design. The additional element elaborates on determining the second portion of the candidate design, thus further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 recites wherein generating the second set of candidate designs comprises: updating one or more bins included in an attribute map based on the sets of design options, the sets of performance metrics, and the sets of attributes; and selecting the second set of candidate designs from the attribute map. The additional elements amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate design options, sets of performance metrics, sets of attributes, and then update one or more bins included in an attribute map, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Also, a person can reasonably evaluate the attribute map and select a second set of candidate designs therefrom. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8, the method of claim 7, recites wherein updating the one or more bins included in the attribute map comprises: matching a first set of attributes for a first design option included in the sets of design options to a bin included in the one or more bins; determining that a first set of performance metrics for the first design option corresponds to an improvement over a second set of performance metrics for a second design option included in the bin; and replacing the second design option included in the bin with the first design option. The additional elements amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate a first set of attributes and then match to a bin included in the one or more bins. A person can also determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) whether or not a first set of performance metrics correspond to an improvement over a second set of performance metrics for a second design option. Additionally, a person can reasonably replace the second design option with the first with/without the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 recites wherein the sets of attributes comprise at least one of a number of buildings, an area of open space, or a façade length. The additional element elaborates on the sets of attributes, thus further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 recites wherein the sets of performance metrics comprise at least one of a number of units an egress distance, a natural ventilation, a site clearance, or a site noise. The additional element elaborates on the sets of performance metrics, thus further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12 recites wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of: generating an additional set of design options based on modifications to the second set of candidate designs; and generating a third set of candidate designs for the construction project based on the additional set of design options. The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation fails to recite details of how an additional set of design options and a third set of candidate designs are generated. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13, the CRM of claim 12, recites wherein generating the additional set of design options comprises: for each candidate design included in the second set of candidate designs, determining one or more fixed portions of the candidate design; (The additional element amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)), since a person can reasonably evaluate each candidate design included in the second set of candidate designs and then determine one or more fixed portions of the candidate design with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
and generating one or more design options that include the one or more fixed portions of the candidate design. (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation fails to recite details of how one or more design options that include the one or more fixed portions of the candidate design are generated. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14 recites wherein determining the first set of candidate designs comprises: executing one or more geometry optimization systems to generate an additional set of design options for the construction project; and selecting the first set of candidate designs from the additional set of design options. The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation fails to recite details of how an additional set of design options for the construction project are generated and how the first set of candidate designs are selected from the additional set of design option. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to amount to significantly more.
Claim 16, the CRM of claim 15, recites wherein updating the one or more bins included in the attribute map comprises: matching a first set of attributes for a first design option included in the sets of design options to a bin included in the one or more bins; and storing the first design option in the bin. The additional elements amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate a first set of attributes and then match to a bin included in the one or more bins. Additionally, a person can reasonably store the first design option in the bin with/without the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17 recites wherein generating the second set of candidate designs comprises selecting the second set of candidate designs based on differences in the sets of attributes associated with the sets of design options. The additional elements amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate sets of attributes associated with the sets of design options and then generate the second set of candidate designs therefrom, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18, the CRM of claim 15, recites wherein each bin included in the one or more bins represents a range of values for each attribute included in the sets of attributes. The additional element amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19, the CRM of claim 11, recites wherein each design option included in the set of design options includes at least one of a site layout, a building design, façade, a landscape, a unit layout, a tree layout, a window design, a wall design, or a door design. The additional element elaborates on each design option, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STODDART et al. US Patent No. 11423191 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Stoddart”) in view of BENJAMIN et al. US Patent No. 11157662 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Benjamin”).
Regarding claim 1, Stoddart discloses A computer-implemented method for generating a modular design for a construction project (“a computer-implemented method for generating an architectural design for a structure” [Col.2 Ln.7]), the method comprising: determining a first set of candidate designs for the construction project (“At step 810, design engine 132 generates a spectrum of candidate designs.” [Col.9 Ln.20]); for each candidate design included in the first set of candidate designs: generating a set of design options based on one or more portions of the candidate design (“At step 810, design engine 132 generates a spectrum of candidate designs. Design engine 132 implements a generative design process to create multiple candidate designs that meet various design criteria. In one embodiment, design engine 132 sequentially applies a set of geometry construction rules using varying sets of parameters to produce different candidate designs. At step 812, design engine 132 evaluates the adjacency of candidate designs relative to the generated preference data to generate adjacency metrics for each potential occupant. A given adjacency metric associated with a particular candidate design and potential occupant indicates how closely that candidate design aligns with the adjacency preferences of the potential occupant. [Col.9 Ln.20]); and determining a set of performance metrics and a set of attributes associated with the set of design options (“generating a fitness metric for the first candidate design based on the first set of metrics, wherein the fitness metric indicates that the first candidate design meets the set of preferences” [Col.11 Ln.65]. The set of preferences are interpreted as a set of attributes because “the preference data indicates at least one numerical value corresponding to a first attribute of the structure” [Col.11 Ln.55]); the sets of performance metrics associated with the sets of design options (“Design engine 132 combines all such metrics to produce an overarching adjacency metric for each candidate design.” [Col.9 Ln.35]), and the sets of attributes associated with the sets of design options (“the preference data indicates at least one numerical value corresponding to a first attribute of the structure, generating a plurality of candidate designs for the structure” [Col.2 Ln.11]).
Stoddart fails to specifically disclose generating a second set of candidate designs for the construction project based on the sets of design options associated with the first set of candidate designs.
However, Benjamin discloses generating a second set of candidate designs for the construction project based on the sets of design options associated with the first set of candidate designs (“the design mesh with a second set of structures based on the first set of construction rules and a second set of construction parameters to generate a second candidate design, wherein the second set of structures is organized within the second candidate design according to a second topology that is derived from the pre-existing topology” Benjamin [Col.22 Ln.50])
Stoddart and Benjamin are analogous art as both patents describe computer-implemented methods for generating multiple candidate designs using construction rules and parameters. Both use metrics to evaluate and compare candidate designs, and both filter or rank the designs to select optimal options. Stoddart discloses “the present invention relate generally to architectural design applications and design generation and, more specifically, to automated generation and evaluation of architectural designs” Stoddart [Col.1 Ln.20]. And Benjamin discloses “the present invention relate generally to computer-aided design technology and, more specifically, to techniques for automatically generating designs having characteristic topologies for urban design projects” Benjamin [Col.1 Ln.20]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoddart’s method to include the generation of a second set of design candidates, as Benjamin discloses, in order “to generate improved versions of candidate designs that better achieve design objectives” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.44].
Regarding claim 2, Stoddart further discloses wherein determining the first set of candidate designs comprises iteratively assigning one or more sets of cells included in a candidate design to one or more building modules based on one or more rules associated with one or more example candidate designs (“Geometry module 210 implements a generative design process to generate candidate designs 214. Each candidate design includes geometry for a potential layout (i.e. one or more sets of cells) of the structure as well as a distribution of various fixtures (i.e. building modules) within that geometry. Those fixtures could include, for example, amenities, desks, walls, staircases, doors, and other features typically associated with structures.” [Col.5 Ln.7]. A potential layout of the structure and various fixtures are interpreted as sets of cells and building modules, respectively, due to Applicant’s disclosure “building layout generator 210 could assign a set of discrete three-dimensional (3D) “tiles” or “cells” within each building to various building modules that represent different types or layouts of interior space or exterior components, such as (but not limited to) living units, offices, commercial space, ground floor space, entryways, parking areas, stairs, elevators, hallways, storage space, facades, roofs, or balconies [ ] a catalog of building modules representing different types of interior space or exterior components to be included in the building” Spec. [P.0037]. Also, the geometry module generative design process is interpreted as an “iterative” process because “geometry module 210 sequentially (i.e. iteratively) applies a set of geometry construction rules using varying sets of parameters to produce different candidate designs.” Stoddart [Col.5 Ln.15]))
Regarding claim 3, Stoddart further discloses further comprising initializing the set of design options based on input parameters that include the one or more portions of the candidate design (“FIG. 8 is a flow diagram of method steps for evaluating candidate designs [ ] a method 800 begins at step 802, where design engine 132 obtains usage preferences via an initial survey (i.e. input parameters). The initial survey could inquire, for example, what high level features (i.e. portions of the candidate design) potential occupants of a structure deem desirable. Design engine 132 deploys the survey via a web-based interface, in practice. At step 804, design engine 132 generates one or more additional surveys based on initial preference data. Design engine 132 could, for example, determine that all answers to a particular question in the initial survey fall within a specific range. Then, design engine 132 could generate an additional survey that only provides potential occupants with the ability to select within that specific range.” [Col.8 Ln.63]. Features are interpreted to include portions of the candidate design because “Each fixture corresponds to one or more desks, a designated team space, a meeting room, an amenity cluster, or any other feature or group of features potentially found in a structure.” Stoddart [Col.6 Ln.27]).
Regarding claim 4, Stoddart further discloses wherein generating the set of design options comprises at least one of: determining a first portion of the candidate design to include in the set of design options; or determining a second portion of the candidate design to exclude from the first portion of the candidate design (“design engine 132 may evaluate each candidate design 214 based directly on the adjacency and work style metrics without first combining these metrics. At step 818, design engine 132 filters the candidate designs based on the fitness metrics to generate design options. The design options include those candidate designs with fitness metrics indicating that the preferences of the potential occupants are well-met. In one embodiment, design engine 132 discards all candidate designs with a fitness score that falls outside of a specified range.” [Col.9 Ln.58]).
Regarding claim 5, Stoddart in view of Benjamin disclose the method of claim 4, but Stoddart fails to specifically disclose wherein determining the first portion of the candidate design comprises adding one or more cells from the candidate design to a set of fixed cells used to initialize generation of the candidate design.
However, Benjamin discloses wherein determining the first portion of the candidate design comprises adding one or more cells from the candidate design to a set of fixed cells used to initialize generation of the candidate design (“FIG. 14 illustrates how the network of roads of FIG. 13 divides the design mesh into regions (i.e. portions), according to various embodiments of the present invention. As shown, design mesh 1100 includes regions 1400(0) through 1400(7) that reside between portions of network 1320 (i.e. set of fixed cells. See Fig.13). Some of the larger regions 1400 form neighborhood subdivisions, while some of the smaller regions 1400 can be merged together (i.e. adding one or more cells) to form neighborhood subdivisions.” Benjamin [Col.14 Ln.9])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoddart’s method to include adding one or more cells from the candidate design to a set of fixed cells, as Benjamin discloses, in order “to generate improved versions of candidate designs that better achieve design objectives” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.44].
Regarding claim 6, Stoddart in view of Benjamin disclose the method of claim 4, but Stoddart fails to specifically disclose wherein determining the second portion of the candidate design comprises removing one or more cells from a set of fixed cells used to initialize generation of the candidate design.
However, Benjamin discloses wherein determining the second portion of the candidate design comprises removing one or more cells from a set of fixed cells used to initialize generation of the candidate design (“At step 1610, neighborhood topology module 310 trims areas (i.e. removing one or more cells) of specific regions (i.e. fixed cells) and/or adjusts the aspect ratio of specific regions to generate neighborhood subdivisions. Neighborhood topology module 310 can trim regions to smooth irregular boundaries.” Benjamin [Col.11 Ln.37]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoddart’s method to include Benjamin’s method of determining the second portion of the candidate design in order “to generate improved versions of candidate designs that better achieve design objectives” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.44].
Regarding claim 7, Stoddart in view of Benjamin disclose the method of claim 1, but Stoddart fails to specifically disclose generating the second set of candidate designs comprises: updating one or more bins included in an attribute map based on the sets of design options, the sets of performance metrics, and the sets of attributes; and selecting the second set of candidate designs from the attribute map.
However, Benjamin discloses generating the second set of candidate designs comprises: updating one or more bins included in an attribute map based on the sets of design options, the sets of performance metrics, and the sets of attributes (“populating, via the geometry engine, the design mesh (i.e. attribute map) with a second set of structures (i.e. bins) based on the first set of construction rules and a second set of construction parameters to generate a second candidate design, wherein the second set of structures is organized within the second candidate design according to a second topology (i.e. attribute) that is derived from the pre-existing topology, generating, via the evaluation engine, a second topological metric for the second candidate design based on the second topology, wherein the second topological metric indicates a second number of characteristic features included in the second candidate design” Benjamin [Col.22 Ln.50]. Populating the design mesh (i.e. attribute map) with a set of structures based on construction rules is interpreted as updating one or more bins because “rules may include rules that control the dimensions, aspect ratios, shapes, and alignments of neighborhoods. In yet another embodiment, design heuristics 206 include rules associated with the placement of dwelling units. These rules may include rules that control the orientation, grouping, and variation of dwelling units, as well as rules that control the geometry of individual dwelling units” Benjamin [Col.7 Ln.55] and Applicant’s disclosure “attribute map 226 could include a three-dimensional (3D) grid [ ] The 3D grid could be divided into contiguous 3D bins” Spec. [P.0059]); and selecting the second set of candidate designs from the attribute map (“FIG. 17 illustrates a placement that the house topology module of FIG. 3 generates for house units within a neighborhood subdivision [ ] house topology module 320 may analyze each possible placement of group 1720 within search grid 1700 and select the placement that maximizes the number of houses. During the search optimization, house topology module 320 generates different placements within search grid 1700 based on design heuristics 206. Design heuristics 206 could indicate, for example, rules for placing houses in a manner that is consistent with an arrangement of houses included in an existing urban layout.” Benjamin [Col.16 Ln.11]).
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 Stoddart to include Benjamin’s method of generating a second set of candidate designs in order “to generate improved versions of candidate designs that better achieve design objectives” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.44].
Regarding claim 8, Stoddart in view of Benjamin disclose the method of claim 7, but Stoddart fails to specifically disclose wherein updating the one or more bins included in the attribute map comprises: matching a first set of attributes for a first design option included in the sets of design options to a bin included in the one or more bins; determining that a first set of performance metrics for the first design option corresponds to an improvement over a second set of performance metrics for a second design option included in the bin; and replacing the second design option included in the bin with the first design option.
However, Benjamin discloses wherein updating the one or more bins included in the attribute map comprises: matching a first set of attributes for a first design option included in the sets of design options to a bin included in the one or more bins (“apartment topology module 330 projects search grid 1900 within search grid outline 1800 of FIG. 18 and then constrains searching (i.e. matching) to occur within unoccupied region 1810 (i.e. one or more bins). Apartment topology module 330 performs a brute force search optimization to determine a specific position (i.e. attribute) for an apartment complex 1910.” Benjamin [Col.16 Ln.33]); determining that a first set of performance metrics for the first design option corresponds to an improvement over a second set of performance metrics for a second design option included in the bin; (“determining, via the evaluation engine, that the second topological metric exceeds the first topological metric, thereby indicating that the second candidate design is a higher ranked design than the first candidate design.” Benjamin [Col.19 Ln.38]); and replacing the second design option included in the bin with the first design option (“geometry engine 200 and evaluation engine 210 execute a multi-objective solver in order to generate and/or update candidate designs 208 until design metrics 212 reach specific threshold values specified in the convergence criteria.” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.57]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoddart’s method to include Benjamin’s method of updating one or more attribute map bins, determining whether first design option metrics correspond to an improvement over second design option metrics, and then replacing the design options in order “to generate improved versions of candidate designs that better achieve design objectives” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.44].
Regarding claim 9, Stoddart further discloses wherein the sets of attributes comprise at least one of a number of buildings, an area of open space, or a façade length (“An exemplary design constraint could be that any candidate design must have at least a minimum area. An exemplary design objective could be that any candidate design should maximize the amount of floorspace devoted to desks. Design criteria 212 can include any technically feasible design constraints and/or design criteria.” [Col.5 Ln.1]).
Regarding claim 10, Stoddart further discloses wherein the sets of performance metrics comprise at least one of a number of units, an egress distance, a natural ventilation, a site clearance, or a site noise (“work style evaluator 224 computes the distances between fixture 310 and any nearby fixtures that reside within the central and/or wide peripheral view of the potential occupant when residing at fixture 310. Work style evaluator 224 combines these distances to generate a productivity metric.” [Col.7 Ln.8]).
Claim 11 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Stoddart further discloses One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform (“a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to generate an architectural design for a structure” [Col.11 Ln.49])
Regarding claim 12, Stoddart in view of Benjamin disclose the CRM of claim 11, but Stoddart fails to specifically disclose wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of: generating an additional set of design options based on modifications to the second set of candidate designs; and generating a third set of candidate designs for the construction project based on the additional set of design options.
However, Benjamin discloses wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of: generating an additional set of design options based on modifications to the second set of candidate designs; and generating a third set of candidate designs for the construction project based on the additional set of design options (“geometry engine 200 and evaluation engine 210 execute a multi-objective solver in order to generate and/or update candidate designs 208 until design metrics 212 reach specific threshold values specified in the convergence criteria.” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.57]).
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 Stoddart to include generating additional sets of design options, as Benjamin discloses, in order “to generate improved versions of candidate designs that better achieve design objectives” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.44].
Regarding claim 13, Stoddart in view of Benjamin disclose the CRM of claim 11, but Stoddart fails to specifically disclose wherein generating the additional set of design options comprises: for each candidate design included in the second set of candidate designs, determining one or more fixed portions of the candidate design; and generating one or more design options that include the one or more fixed portions of the candidate design.
However, Benjamin discloses wherein generating the additional set of design options comprises: for each candidate design included in the second set of candidate designs, determining one or more fixed portions of the candidate design; and generating one or more design options that include the one or more fixed portions of the candidate design (“Design criteria 202 can include design constraints that generally describe features and/or attributes of designs that should be avoided when generating design options 140. A given design constraint could indicate, for example, regions (i.e. portions) of the physical property where the construction of structures cannot occur” Benjamin [Col.6 Ln.57]).
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 Stoddart to include Benjamin’s method of generating additional sets of design options in order “to generate improved versions of candidate designs that better achieve design objectives” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.44].
Regarding claim 14, Stoddart further discloses wherein determining the first set of candidate designs comprises: executing one or more geometry optimization systems to generate an additional set of design options for the construction project; and selecting the first set of candidate designs from the additional set of design options. (“The design engine generates multiple candidate designs for the structure via a generative design process, and then evaluates each candidate design using a set of metrics [ ] the design engine selects at least one candidate design that optimizes the set of metrics” [Col.10 Ln.5]. The set of metrics are interpreted to include geometry because “The various metrics are defined mathematically and automatically generated based on the geometry of the candidate designs” [Col.10 Ln.16])
Claim 15 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, Stoddart in view of Benjamin disclose the CRM of claim 11, but Stoddart fails to specifically disclose wherein updating the one or more bins included in the attribute map comprises: matching a first set of attributes for a first design option included in the sets of design options to a bin included in the one or more bins; and storing the first design option in the bin.
However, Benjamin discloses wherein updating the one or more bins included in the attribute map comprises: matching a first set of attributes for a first design option included in the sets of design options to a bin included in the one or more bins; and storing the first design option in the bin (“apartment topology module 330 projects search grid 1900 within search grid outline 1800 of FIG. 18 and then constrains searching (i.e. matching) to occur within unoccupied region 1810 (i.e. one or more bins). Apartment topology module 330 performs a brute force search optimization to determine a specific position (i.e. attribute) for an apartment complex 1910. In one embodiment, apartment topology module 330 may analyze each possible placement of apartment complex 1910 within search grid 1900 and select the placement (i.e. store the first design option in the bin)” Benjamin [Col.16 Ln.33]).
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 Stoddart to include Benjamin’s method of updating attribute map bins, in order “to generate improved versions of candidate designs that better achieve design objectives” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.44].
Regarding claim 17, Stoddart in view of Benjamin disclose the CRM of claim 11, but Stoddart fails to specifically disclose wherein generating the second set of candidate designs comprises selecting the second set of candidate designs based on differences in the sets of attributes associated with the sets of design options.
However, Benjamin discloses wherein generating the second set of candidate designs comprises selecting the second set of candidate designs based on differences in the sets of attributes associated with the sets of design options (“a topological metric generated for a given candidate design 208 indicates the degree to which the topology of the candidate design resembles the topology of an existing urban layout. Evaluation engine 210 may compute the topological metric by comparing the topology of the candidate design 208 to the topology of the existing urban layout and then computing a total number of similar features or attributes [ ] Geometry engine 200 analyzes design metrics 212 in conjunction with candidate designs 208 and then regenerates and/or modifies candidate designs 208, based on design heuristics 206, to generate improved versions of candidate designs 208 that better achieve design objectives 204 while still meeting design criteria 202” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.27]).
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 Stoddart to include Benjamin’s method of generating the second set of candidate designs, in order “to generate improved versions of candidate designs that better achieve design objectives” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.44].
Regarding claim 18, Stoddart in view of Benjamin disclose the CRM of claim 15, but Stoddart fails to specifically disclose wherein each bin included in the one or more bins represents a range of values for each attribute included in the sets of attributes.
However, Benjamin discloses wherein each bin included in the one or more bins represents a range of values for each attribute included in the sets of attributes (“generating [ ] a design mesh for a plurality of candidate designs based on a first design criterion associated with a region of land, populating, via the geometry engine, the design mesh with a first set of structures (i.e. one or more bins) based on a first set of construction rules and a first set of construction parameters to generate a first candidate design, wherein the first set of structures is organized within the first candidate design according to a first topology that is derived from a pre-existing topology associated with a pre-existing urban layout, generating, via an evaluation engine included in the CAD application, a first topological metric for the first candidate design based on the first topology, wherein the first topological metric indicates a first number of characteristic features (i.e. range of values for each attribute) included in the first candidate design that are also included in the pre-existing urban layout” Benjamin [Col.22 Ln.35]).
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 Stoddart to include attribute range of values in each bin, as Benjamin discloses, in order “to generate improved versions of candidate designs that better achieve design objectives” Benjamin [Col.8 Ln.44].
Regarding claim 19, Stoddart further discloses wherein each design option included in the set of design options includes at least one of a site layout, a building design, façade, a landscape, a unit layout, a tree layout, a window design, a wall design, or a door design (“Each candidate design includes geometry for a potential layout of the structure as well as a distribution of various fixtures within that geometry. Those fixtures could include, for example, amenities, desks, walls, staircases, doors, and other features typically associated with structures.” [Col.5 Ln.8]).
Claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Additionally, Stoddart further discloses A system, comprising:
one or more memories that store instructions, and one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories and, when executing the instructions, are configured to perform the steps of: (“A computing device, comprising: a memory storing a design engine; and a processor that, when executing the design engine, is configured to perform the steps of” [Col.17 Ln.28])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(applicant’s disclosure) Gaier, Adam, et al. "T-domino: exploring multiple criteria with quality-diversity and the tournament dominance objective." International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. “MAP-Elites operates by first discretizing the feature space into bins, collectively known as a map or archive. Each bin contains a single solution and its corresponding fitness value. New solutions are created by selecting and varying solutions from the map. These new solutions are evaluated and two values produced: a performance measure and a set of coordinates in the feature space. These coordinates indicate the bin to which the solution belongs. The solution is placed in the bin if it is empty, or if the candidate solution has higher performance than the current occupant of the bin, it replaces it.” [Pg.266 2.2 P.2]
Villaggi, Lorenzo, and Danil Nagy. "Generative Design for Architectural Space Planning: The Case of the Autodesk University 2017 Layout." 2019. “an overview of the process behind the design of the AU exhibit hall with technical and theoretical in-depth overviews of the generative design steps: 1. generate the design space through a bespoke geometry system; 2. evaluate each design through design goals; 3. evolve generations of designs through evolutionary computation” [Pg.1 P.1].
Pierrot, Thomas, et al. "Multi-objective quality diversity optimization" Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference. 2022. “The goal of
Q
D
(i.e. Quality Diversity) methods is to find a set of solutions x𝑖 ∈
X
so that each solution x𝑖 occupies a different cell 𝑆𝑖 in
T
and maximizes the objective function within that cell.” [Pg.2 2.2].
Cheng, Shenghui, and Klaus Mueller. "The data context map: Fusing data and attributes into a unified display." IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 22.1 (2015): 121-130. “The data matrix,
D
M
, is one of the most fundamental structures in data analytics. It is the
M
x
N
rectangular array of
N
variables (often referred to as attributes or labels) and
M
samples (also frequently called cases, observations, or data items)” [Pg.1 Intro.].
BENJAMIN et al. (Generative Space Planning In Architectural Design For Efficient Design Space Exploration – US 20190026401 A1). “A design engine generates a spectrum of design options to solve an architectural design problem.” [Abstract]
STODDART et al. (Multi-Scale Generative Design For Modular Construction – US 20240104257 A1). “the present invention sets forth a technique for generating a modular design for a construction project. The technique includes executing generating a plurality of design options for the construction project, where each design option includes a site layout and a set of building designs for a set of buildings included in the site layout.” [Abstract]
BENJAMIN et al. (Generating Designs For Multi-Family Housing Projects That Balance Competing Design Metrics – US 20210150083 A1). “A design engine is configured to automatically generate designs for multi-family housing projects that simultaneously meet local construction regulations while also meeting specific financial targets. A design generator within the design engine generates a first generation of design options that reflect historical design trends. A design evaluator within the design engine then generates design metrics that quantify various attributes of the different design options. The design generator identifies a subset of the design options that optimally balance some or all of the various design metrics, and then generates a subsequent generation of design options that includes design features derived from the subset of design options.” [Abstract]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights