DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract includes phrases which can be implied.
Examiner suggests amending the abstract to recite:
A system for automated distribution of a number of predetermined objects in a room and/or on a surface. The system may include: a module for inputting and/or generating data; a module for outputting and/or presenting solutions; and interfaces for transmitting the data to a storage unit connected to a processor configured to carry out a genetic algorithm. The genetic algorithm uses the data and initially provides a generation of solutions The processor evaluates and selects among the solutions based on their progressiveness then recombines the selected solutions The procedure repeats and provides the most progressive solutions to an artificial intelligence and/or to a neural network which uses the solutions to generate new rules and transfers the most progressive solutions to the processor for refinement of the algorithm.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
one or more modules for inputting and/or generating data of … (Specification page 13 “A ‘module’ can be understood in connection with the invention, for example, as a laser scanner, a 3D camera, a processor, and/or a storage unit for storing program code.”)
one or more modules for outputting and/or presenting solutions (Specification page 13 “A ‘module’ can be understood in connection with the invention, for example, as a laser scanner, a 3D camera, a processor, and/or a storage unit for storing program code.”)
Claim 5:
a module for room identification generates data of the first type (Specification page 13 “A ‘module’ can be understood in connection with the invention, for example, as a laser scanner, a 3D camera, a processor, and/or a storage unit for storing program code.”)
Each ‘module’ is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) fourth to last paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the module is a laser scanner.” The phrase “the module” has unclear antecedent as three different modules are recited within the parent claims thus far. Parent claim 5 recites one module and parent claim 1 recites two modules. Compare with “Claim Interpretation” section above discussing the various modules. Accordingly, it is unclear which of the three modules “the module” is referring to.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
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; and
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 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), 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). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A system for automated distribution of a number of predetermined objects in a room and/or on a surface, the system comprising:
…
wherein the genetic algorithm retrieves the data of the first, second, and third type from the storage unit, processes them in a computerized manner, and initially provides a generation of solutions in an automated manner;
wherein the processor evaluates solutions of the first and the following generation and selections among the solutions based on their progressiveness with respect to predetermined parameters;
then recombines the selected solutions;
wherein the procedure repeating the genetic algorithm passes through a loop, in which the calculated solutions are evaluated, selected, and recombined again and again with respect to their progressiveness;
the processor transfers the most progressive solutions of a generation to an artificial intelligence and/or to a neural network;
the artificial intelligence and/or the neural network uses the most progressive solutions to generate new rules for distributing a number of predetermined objects in a room and/or on a surface, and transfer the most progressive solutions to the processor for refinement of the genetic algorithm; and
…
The genetic algorithm is a mathematical algorithm. Providing solutions with the genetic algorithm is a recitation in prose of performing respective mathematical calculations.
Evaluating the solutions according to their progressiveness encompasses computing respective objective function values to calculate the respective progressiveness of each solution.
Recombining the selected solutions is another mathematical step of the algorithm.
Repeating the genetic algorithm passes in a loop to evaluate, select, and recombine solutions is reciting in prose that the algorithm is an iterative algorithm which repeats the respective calculations to converge.
The most progressive solution (i.e. maximum objective function value or minimum cost function) is the result of the mathematical genetic algorithm.
Generating new rules to refine the solution is further recitation of mathematical algorithm using respective mathematical calculations of an artificial intelligence or neural network.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
one or more modules for inputting and/or generating data of a first, second, and third type,
wherein data of the first type relate to the room and/or the surface,
data of the second type relate to the parameters patterns rules, regulations, and
data of the third type relate to the objects;
one or more modules for outputting and/or presenting solutions;
one or more interface for transmitting the data of the first, second, and third type to at least one storage unit connected to a processor, wherein the processor is configured to carry out a genetic algorithm;
…
the processor transfers a number of solutions optimized with regard to the predetermined parameter or parameters to the modules for outputting and/or presenting the solutions;
wherein the arrangement of the predetermined objects in a room and/or on a surface is at least partially predetermined by the solutions transferred to the one or more modules.
Specification page 13 “A ‘module’ can be understood in connection with the invention, for example, as a laser scanner, a 3D camera, a processor, and/or a storage unit for storing program code.” The a ‘module,’ e.g. a processor, and explicitly recited processor and interface are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Inputting data for the room, rules, and objects is a generic recitation of data gathering. Data gathering recited at a high level of generality is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The first data type corresponding with a room or surface is a general recitation of a field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Transferring data/solutions, recited at a high level of generality, is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Using the solutions to determine or predetermine the arrangement of the objects in a room or surface corresponds with a general recitation to “apply” the result of the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under See MPEP §2106.05(b), (f), and (h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
Regarding generic inputting data and transferring solution data, MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
These data gathering examples and transmitting of data over a network are encompassed by the generic recitation of data gathering and transferring of data recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
2. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the surface comprises a circuit board.
The surface comprising a circuit board is a general linking to an intended field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under See MPEP §2106.05(f) and (h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
3. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the room comprises a factory hall.
The room comprising a factory hall is a general linking to an intended field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under See MPEP §2106.05(f) and (h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
4. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the room comprises an office room.
The room comprising an office room is a general linking to an intended field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under See MPEP §2106.05(f) and (h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
5. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein one of the one or more modules comprises a module for room identification generates data of the first type.
Specification page 13 “A ‘module’ can be understood in connection with the invention, for example, as a laser scanner, a 3D camera, a processor, and/or a storage unit for storing program code.” The a ‘module,’ e.g. a processor, is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under See MPEP §2106.05(f) and (h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
6. The system as claimed in claim 5, wherein the module is a laser scanner.
Performing data gathering with a laser scanner corresponds with insignificant extra solution activity in the form of data gathering. MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
US patent 9,677,881 B2 Thimirachandra, et al. teaches “a conventional laser scanner, to enhance the functionality of the mobile computing device 300, specifically to provide edge detection and dimension measurement functionality to the mobile computing device 300.” Accordingly, it is conventional to use a laser scanner to provide dimension measurement data gathering.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 7 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
7. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein one of the at least one interfaces is configured to communicate with a processor programmed to execute computer-aided design (CAD).
Executing on a processor with CAD is general linking to a technological environment. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 7 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under See MPEP §2106.05(f) and (h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
8. The system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a presentation of each generation of solutions.
Presenting the solutions of the abstract idea corresponds with insignificant extra solution activity in the form of a generic outputting of the result. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
US patent 5,850,560 Kang column 1 lines 20-22 teach “It is of course conventional to display information and results of an operation performed by the computer as an image on a video monitor.” Displaying results corresponds with presentation of solutions.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
9. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the module for presentation comprises a display device.
Presenting with a display device is a generic recitation of outputting the result. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
US patent 5,850,560 Kang column 1 lines 20-22 teach “It is of course conventional to display information and results of an operation performed by the computer as an image on a video monitor.”
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
10. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optimization takes place with respect to multiple parameters simultaneously.
The mathematical algorithm having a multi-objective optimization is still a mathematical algorithm.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. The system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the parameters have different weighting.
The respective weights used in the mathematical calculation is further recitation of the respective mathematical algorithm identified as the abstract idea.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 12 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
12. A method comprising: using a genetic algorithm for optimizing the distribution of a number of predetermined objects according to selectable parameters;
wherein the objects are to be arranged according to object-related rules on a defined surface and/or in a predetermined room, …; and
wherein the arrangement of the predetermined objects in a room and/or on a surface is at least partially predetermined by these solutions.
Using a genetic algorithm to generate optimized solutions according to object-related rules is recitation to use a mathematical algorithm. Both the algorithm and the rules are part of the mathematical algorithm. The resulting solutions are merely the result of the mathematical algorithm. Accordingly, the only thing recited are various aspects of mathematical algorithms.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 12 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
such that solutions are presented in an automated and computerized manner;
Being in an automated and computerized manner amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 12 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under See MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 13 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 13 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
13. The use as claimed in claim 12, wherein the predetermined room comprises an office room and/or a factory hall.
The room comprising an office room or a factory hall is a general linking to an intended field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 13 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under See MPEP §2106.05(f) and (h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 14 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 14 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
14. The use as claimed in claim 12, wherein the predetermined surface comprises circuit board.
The surface comprising a circuit board is a general linking to an intended field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 14 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under See MPEP §2106.05(f) and (h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 15 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 15 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
15. The use as claimed in claim 12, wherein the genetic algorithm is carried out in a computerized manner via an interface configured by means of an artificial intelligence and/or by means of a neural network.
Being in an automated and computerized manner amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Including a generic artificial intelligence or neural network is further recitation of mathematical aspects of the identified mathematical algorithm.
Claim 15 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under See MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10-15
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akase, R. & Okada, Y. “Automatic 3D Furniture Layout Based on Interactive Evolutionary Computation” IEEE 7th Int’l Conf. on Complex Intelligent & Software Intensive Sys., pp. 726-731 (2013) [herein “Akase”] in view of Ismail, F.S., et al. “Optimization of electronics component placement design on PCB using self organizing genetic algorithm (SOGA)” J. Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 23, pp. 883-895 (2012) [herein “Ismail”].
Claim 1 recites “1. A system for automated distribution of a number of predetermined objects in a room and/or on a surface.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a room.”
Akase title discloses “Automatic 3D Furniture Layout Based on Interactive Evolutionary Computation.” Furniture layout corresponds with a distribution of objects within a room.
Claim 1 further recites “the system comprising: one or more modules for inputting and/or generating data of a first, second, and third type, wherein data of the first type relate to the room and/or the surface, data of the second type relate to the parameters patterns rules, regulations, and data of the third type relate to the objects.” Akase page 729 right column fourth paragraph disclose “the dimensions of a room.” The dimensions of the room correspond with first information related to the room.
Akase page 728 section IV(A) “Cost Function” discloses “we use four different ergonomic supports (constraints). These constraints are defined by the following cost functions.” Each cost function corresponds with a second data type related to rules and regulations. See further Akase page 730 “fitness” function equation (5.3).
Akase page 727 section III first paragraph disclose “Our system mainly consists of three basic elements: a room (root), geometry and attributes of furniture.” The geometry and attributes of furniture correspond with third data related to objects. The furniture are objects.
But Akase does not explicitly disclose a module/processor; however, in analogous art of optimizing placement using a genetic algorithm, Ismail page 893 teaches “This work use the processor type Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo CPU, 2GHz.” The CPU corresponds with processor implementation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase and Ismail. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use CPU implementation into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of suitable computer implementation for executing an evolutionary computation process.
Claim 1 further recites “one or more modules for outputting and/or presenting solutions.” Akase page 726 right column first paragraph discloses “Finally, the user will obtain his/her desired furniture placement.” The user obtaining the furniture placement corresponds with outputting or presenting the results to the user.
Akase page 730 left column disclose:
The user evaluation is count towards the default evaluation value and it runs from 0 to 1. The user gives this evaluation to the system through its GUI. The system sets a default user evaluation value of zero to all individuals. After that, the user inputs the evaluation value according to his/her layout preference
The graphical user interface (GUI) of the system corresponds with a means for outputting or presenting solutions.
Claim 1 further recites “one or more interface for transmitting the data of the first, second, and third type to at least one storage unit connected to a processor.” Akase does not explicitly disclose a processor; however, in analogous art of optimizing placement using a genetic algorithm, Ismail page 893 teaches “This work use the processor type Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo CPU, 2GHz.” The CPU corresponds with processor implementation. This CPU is capable of transmitting data as claimed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase and Ismail. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use CPU implementation into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of suitable computer implementation for executing an evolutionary computation process.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the processor is configured to carry out a genetic algorithm; wherein the genetic algorithm retrieves the data of the first, second, and third type from the storage unit, processes them in a computerized manner, and initially provides a generation of solutions in an automated manner.” Akase page 728 section IV(B) “Interactive Evolutionary Computation (IEC)” teaches “using evolutionary computing.” Akase page 729 left column item (3) disclose “in IEC (and genetic algorithm (GA).” The IEC genetic algorithm process corresponds with a genetic algorithm.
Akase page 729 left column item (1) disclose “(1) Ontogeny: The system generates an initial set of individuals in the beginning of IEC.” Akase page 728 figure 7 shows a “selection” step. This initial selection is an initially providing of a generation of solutions in an automated manner.
Akase does not explicitly disclose a processor; however, in analogous art of optimizing placement using a genetic algorithm, Ismail page 893 teaches “This work use the processor type Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo CPU, 2GHz.” The CPU corresponds with processor implementation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase and Ismail. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use CPU implementation into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of suitable computer implementation for executing an evolutionary computation process.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the processor evaluates solutions of the first and the following generation and selections among the solutions based on their progressiveness with respect to predetermined parameters.” Akase page 728 figure 7 shows an “Evaluation” step. Akase page 730 section V(B) “Fitness Function” first paragraph teaches “Each individual’s fitness is calculated according to the following expression [equation (5.3).” This fitness function evaluating each individuals fitness corresponds with evaluating solutions to determine a progressiveness of each.]
Claim 1 further recites “then recombines the selected solutions.” Akase page 728 figure 7 shows a “Crossover” and “mutation” steps. The crossover and mutation steps correspond with recombining selected solutions. See further Akase page 729 items “(4) Crossover” and “(5) Mutation.”
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the procedure repeating the genetic algorithm passes through a loop, in which the calculated solutions are evaluated, selected, and recombined again and again with respect to their progressiveness.” Akase page 728 figure 7 shows a loop repeating the evaluation, selection, crossover, and mutation steps.
Claim 1 further recites “the processor transfers the most progressive solutions of a generation to an artificial intelligence and/or to a neural network; the artificial intelligence and/or the neural network uses the most progressive solutions to generate new rules for distributing a number of predetermined objects in a room and/or on a surface, and transfer the most progressive solutions to the processor for refinement of the genetic algorithm.” Akase abstract discloses “During this optimization, the user can make an adjustment as necessary.” The user making adjustments corresponds with a refinement. Akase page 730 left column disclose:
The user evaluation is count towards the default evaluation value and it runs from 0 to 1. The user gives this evaluation to the system through its GUI. The system sets a default user evaluation value of zero to all individuals. After that, the user inputs the evaluation value according to his/her layout preference
The user evaluation corresponds with an evaluation which refines the genetic algorithm’s solution selections.
But Akase does not explicitly disclose an AI or neural network performing this refinement; however, in analogous art of optimizing placement using a genetic algorithm, Ismail page 887 left column last paragraph teaches “we propose SOGA, in which an inner loop GA is used to optimize the weights combination of all the objective functions.” Optimizing the weights of the objective function corresponds to making refinement to respective fitness functions, for example, refinement to the weights of the fitness function of Akase equation (5.3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase and Ismail. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use another loop to optimize the weights of the fitness function(s) into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of so that a user is not required to evaluate every individual and a larger number of individuals may be generated for consideration. See Akase page 731 left column second paragraph (“We cannot use too many individuals because the user is supposed to evaluate every individual in IEC.”)
Claim 1 further recites “and the processor transfers a number of solutions optimized with regard to the predetermined parameter or parameters to the modules for outputting and/or presenting the solutions.” Akase page 731 left column third paragraph discloses “In addition, as depicted in Figure 10, since our system provides walk-through, the user can check a generated layout in the interior of the room.” Providing a virtual walk-through as depicted in figure 10 corresponds with presenting or outputting the solution.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the arrangement of the predetermined objects in a room and/or on a surface is at least partially predetermined by the solutions transferred to the one or more modules.” Akase title discloses “Automatic 3D Furniture Layout Based on Interactive Evolutionary Computation.” Akase page 726 right column first paragraph discloses “Finally, the user will obtain his/her desired furniture placement.” Furniture layout which is based on the interactive evolutionary computation corresponds with the arrangement being at least partly determined by the solutions of the IEC process.
Claim 2 further recites “2. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the surface comprises a circuit board.” Akase does not explicitly disclose a circuit board; however, in analogous art of optimizing placement using a genetic algorithm, Ismail title teaches “Optimization of electronics component placement design on PCB using self organizing genetic algorithm (SOGA)” Placement design on a PCB correspond to optimizing layout solutions of a circuit board. See further Ismail page 887 figure 3 “Flow chart of SOGA evaluation process.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase and Ismail. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use placement design on PCB using a genetic algorithm into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of “solving this multi-objective optimization problem” with “a better optimal solution as compared to the other methods.” See Ismail abstract.
Claim 4 further recites “4. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the room comprises an office room.” Akase page 731 figure 10 and page 727 figure 3 show an office room as the example.
Claim 5 further recites “5. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein one of the one or more modules comprises a module for room identification generates data of the first type.” Akase page 729 right column section V(A) disclose “We express the gene as depicted in Figure 8. A single individual corresponds to a single room. In other words, the system generates some individuals in a generation.”
But Akase does not explicitly disclose a module/processor; however, in analogous art of optimizing placement using a genetic algorithm, Ismail page 893 teaches “This work use the processor type Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo CPU, 2GHz.” The CPU corresponds with processor implementation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase and Ismail. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use CPU implementation into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of suitable computer implementation for executing an evolutionary computation process.
Claim 7 further recites “7. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein one of the at least one interfaces is configured to communicate with a processor programmed to execute computer-aided design (CAD).” Akase page 730 left column disclose:
The user evaluation is count towards the default evaluation value and it runs from 0 to 1. The user gives this evaluation to the system through its GUI. The system sets a default user evaluation value of zero to all individuals. After that, the user inputs the evaluation value according to his/her layout preference
Akase page 727 figure 3 shows a “system window” showing a computer-aided design process. The graphical user interface (GUI) and/or system window corresponds with an execution of a CAD process.
Akase does not explicitly disclose a processor; however, in analogous art of optimizing placement using a genetic algorithm, Ismail page 893 teaches “This work use the processor type Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo CPU, 2GHz.” The CPU corresponds with processor implementation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase and Ismail. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use CPU implementation into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of suitable computer implementation for executing an evolutionary computation process.
Claim 8 further recites “8. The system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a presentation of each generation of solutions.” Akase page 726 right column first paragraph discloses “Finally, the user will obtain his/her desired furniture placement.” The user obtaining the furniture placement corresponds with outputting or presenting the results to the user.
Akase page 730 left column disclose:
The user evaluation is count towards the default evaluation value and it runs from 0 to 1. The user gives this evaluation to the system through its GUI. The system sets a default user evaluation value of zero to all individuals. After that, the user inputs the evaluation value according to his/her layout preference
The graphical user interface (GUI) of the system corresponds with a means for outputting or presenting solutions.
Claim 10 further recites “10. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optimization takes place with respect to multiple parameters simultaneously.” Akase page 728 section IV(A) “Cost Function” discloses four subsections (1) Accessibility Cost; (2) Visibility Cost; (3) Pairwise Distance Cost; (4) Pairwise Angle Cost. Akase page 730 equation (5.3) further discloses a user evaluation. Each of these five aspects of the fitness function correspond with optimizing separate parameters.
Regarding the combination with Ismail, see further Ismail page 885 left column “Muli-objective problems formulation.”
Claim 11 further recites “11. The system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the parameters have different weighting.” Akase page 730 left column disclose:
The user evaluation is count towards the default evaluation value and it runs from 0 to 1. The user gives this evaluation to the system through its GUI. The system sets a default user evaluation value of zero to all individuals. After that, the user inputs the evaluation value according to his/her layout preference
The user evaluation value being from 0 to 1 corresponds with a respective weighting.
Regarding the combination with Ismail as cited above, Ismail page 887 left column last paragraph teaches “we propose SOGA, in which an inner loop GA is used to optimize the weights combination of all the objective functions.” The weight combinations correspond to different weightings.
Claim 12 recites “12. A method comprising: using a genetic algorithm for optimizing the distribution of a number of predetermined objects according to selectable parameters.” Akase page 728 section IV(B) “Interactive Evolutionary Computation (IEC)” teaches “using evolutionary computing.” Akase page 729 left column item (3) disclose “in IEC (and genetic algorithm (GA).” The IEC genetic algorithm process corresponds with a genetic algorithm.
Akase title discloses “Automatic 3D Furniture Layout Based on Interactive Evolutionary Computation.” Furniture layout corresponds with a distribution of objects within a room.
Akase page 729 right column section V(A) disclose “These individual hold all object (furniture)’s position [X, Y] and angle for corresponding pair object or a wall.” The position and angle are each selectable parameters of the objects.
Claim 12 further recites “wherein the objects are to be arranged according to object-related rules on a defined surface and/or in a predetermined room.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a predetermined room.”
Akase title discloses “Automatic 3D Furniture Layout Based on Interactive Evolutionary Computation.” Furniture layout corresponds with a distribution of objects within a room.
Akase page 728 section IV(A) “Cost Function” discloses “we use four different ergonomic supports (constraints). These constraints are defined by the following cost functions.” Each cost function corresponds with a second data type related to rules and regulations. See further Akase page 730 “fitness” function equation (5.3).
Claim 12 further recites “such that solutions are presented in an automated and computerized manner.” Akase page 729 left column item (1) disclose “(1) Ontogeny: The system generates an initial set of individuals in the beginning of IEC.” Akase page 728 figure 7 shows a “selection” step. This initial selection is an initially providing of a generation of solutions in an automated manner.
Akase page 726 right column first paragraph discloses “Finally, the user will obtain his/her desired furniture placement.” The user obtaining the furniture placement corresponds with outputting or presenting the results to the user.
Akase page 730 left column disclose:
The user evaluation is count towards the default evaluation value and it runs from 0 to 1. The user gives this evaluation to the system through its GUI. The system sets a default user evaluation value of zero to all individuals. After that, the user inputs the evaluation value according to his/her layout preference
The graphical user interface (GUI) of the system corresponds with a means for outputting or presenting solutions.
But Akase does not explicitly disclose computerized; however, in analogous art of optimizing placement using a genetic algorithm, Ismail page 893 teaches “This work use the processor type Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo CPU, 2GHz.” The CPU corresponds with processor implementation. This CPU is capable of transmitting data as claimed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase and Ismail. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use CPU implementation into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of suitable computer implementation for executing an evolutionary computation process.
Claim 12 further recites “and wherein the arrangement of the predetermined objects in a room and/or on a surface is at least partially predetermined by these solutions.” Akase title discloses “Automatic 3D Furniture Layout Based on Interactive Evolutionary Computation.” Akase page 726 right column first paragraph discloses “Finally, the user will obtain his/her desired furniture placement.” Furniture layout which is based on the interactive evolutionary computation corresponds with the arrangement being at least partly determined by the solutions of the IEC process.
Claim 13 further recites “13. The use as claimed in claim 12, wherein the predetermined room comprises an office room and/or a factory hall.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “an office room.”
Akase page 731 figure 10 and page 727 figure 3 show an office room as the example.
Claim 14 further recites “14. The use as claimed in claim 12, wherein the predetermined surface comprises circuit board.” Akase does not explicitly disclose a circuit board; however, in analogous art of optimizing placement using a genetic algorithm, Ismail title teaches “Optimization of electronics component placement design on PCB using self organizing genetic algorithm (SOGA)” Placement design on a PCB correspond to optimizing layout solutions of a circuit board. See further Ismail page 887 figure 3 “Flow chart of SOGA evaluation process.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase and Ismail. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use placement design on PCB using a genetic algorithm into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of “solving this multi-objective optimization problem” with “a better optimal solution as compared to the other methods.” See Ismail abstract.
Claim 15 further recites “15. The use as claimed in claim 12, wherein the genetic algorithm is carried out in a computerized manner via an interface.” Akase page 728 section IV(B) “Interactive Evolutionary Computation (IEC)” teaches “using evolutionary computing.” Akase page 729 left column item (3) disclose “in IEC (and genetic algorithm (GA).” The IEC genetic algorithm process corresponds with a genetic algorithm.
Akase page 729 left column item (1) disclose “(1) Ontogeny: The system generates an initial set of individuals in the beginning of IEC.” Akase page 728 figure 7 shows a “selection” step. This initial selection is an initially providing of a generation of solutions in an automated manner.
Akase does not explicitly disclose a processor; however, in analogous art of optimizing placement using a genetic algorithm, Ismail page 893 teaches “This work use the processor type Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo CPU, 2GHz.” The CPU corresponds with processor implementation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase and Ismail. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use CPU implementation into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of suitable computer implementation for executing an evolutionary computation process.
Claim 15 further recites “configured by means of an artificial intelligence and/or by means of a neural network.” Akase abstract discloses “During this optimization, the user can make an adjustment as necessary.” The user making adjustments corresponds with a refinement. Akase page 730 left column disclose:
The user evaluation is count towards the default evaluation value and it runs from 0 to 1. The user gives this evaluation to the system through its GUI. The system sets a default user evaluation value of zero to all individuals. After that, the user inputs the evaluation value according to his/her layout preference
The user evaluation corresponds with an evaluation which refines the genetic algorithm’s solution selections.
But Akase does not explicitly disclose an AI or neural network performing this refinement; however, in analogous art of optimizing placement using a genetic algorithm, Ismail page 887 left column last paragraph teaches “we propose SOGA, in which an inner loop GA is used to optimize the weights combination of all the objective functions.” Optimizing the weights of the objective function corresponds to making refinement to respective fitness functions, for example, refinement to the weights of the fitness function of Akase equation (5.3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase and Ismail. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use another loop to optimize the weights of the fitness function(s) into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of so that a user is not required to evaluate every individual and a larger number of individuals may be generated for consideration. See Akase page 731 left column second paragraph (“We cannot use too many individuals because the user is supposed to evaluate every individual in IEC.”)
Dependent Claims 3 and 9
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akase and Ismail as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent 8,762,111 B2 Muller, et al. [herein “Muller”].
Claim 3 further recites “3. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the room comprises a factory hall.” Akase does not explicitly disclose a factory hall; however, in analogous art of computer-aided layout planning, Muller column 1 lines 64-67 teach:
Both real model layouts and computer-aided simulations of production plants can be used to carry out optimization processes which allow the production sequences as well as the space requirement and further aspects to be optimized.
Muller column 5 lines 50-53 teaches “If this number exceeds a certain limit, for example 100, local search heuristics can also be used instead, for example evolutionary algorithms.” Model layouts of a production plant corresponds with layout for a factory.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase, Ismail, and Muller. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use genetic algorithms on production plants into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of optimizing “production sequences as well as the space requirements.” See Muller column 1 lines 64-67.
Claim 9 further recites “9. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the module for presentation comprises a display device.” Akase page 730 left column disclose:
The user evaluation is count towards the default evaluation value and it runs from 0 to 1. The user gives this evaluation to the system through its GUI. The system sets a default user evaluation value of zero to all individuals. After that, the user inputs the evaluation value according to his/her layout preference
Akase page 727 figure 3 shows a “system window” showing a computer-aided design process. The graphical user interface (GUI) and/or system window corresponds with a display, but not a display device.
Akase does not explicitly disclose a display device; however, in analogous art of computer-aided layout planning, Muller column 9 lines 61-62 teach “the planning result represented by the model layout 13 are immediately displayed on the output device 22.” Muller column 10 line 1 teaches “The output device 22 is formed by a flat screen.” A flat screen for displaying planning results corresponds with a display device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase, Ismail, and Muller. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a flat screen display into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose of optimizing “production sequences as well as the space requirements.” See Muller column 1 lines 64-67.
Dependent Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akase and Ismail as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US patent 11,727,624 B2 Cady, et al. [herein “Cady”].
Claim 6 further recites “6. The system as claimed in claim 5, wherein the module is a laser scanner.” Akase does not explicitly disclose a laser scanner; however, in analogous art of computer aided planning of physical spaces, Cady column 7 lines 50-52 teaches “Laser scanner 304 performs a scan 302 and captures data representing dimensions and characteristics of the physical space.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akase, Ismail, and Cady. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use laser scanning of room dimensions into the system of automatic furniture layout for the advantageous purpose “to capture data representing all of the dimensions of the physical space (e.g., multiple rooms, multiple floors/levels, etc.).” See Cady column 7 lines 57-59.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120253725 A1 Malka; Francis Ruben et al.
teaches
Modifying a floor plan based on measurements made by one or more sensors
US 10977411 B1 Lin; Yu-Sheng et al.
Generating packing solution of printed circuit board
JP-2001084285-A Masashi
House Design System Using Genetic Algorithm
Tachikawa, R. & Osana, Y. “Office Layout Support System using Genetic Algorithm – Generation of Room Arrangement Plans for Polygonal Space” Int’l Symp. On Nonlinear Theory & its Applications, NOLTA2010 (2010)
Generation of layout plans for workspace using genetic algorithms.
Kan, P. & Kaufmann, H. “Automated Interior Design Using a Genetic Algorithm” Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symp. on Virtual Reality Software & Tech., VRST’17 (2017)
Interior design with genetic algorithms; cost function, crossover, and mutation for optimized layouts.
Kumar, A., et al. “Assisting an architect with alternative automated space layout designs using order crossover Genetic Algorithm in AutoCAD” IEEE Int’l Conf. on Advances in Mechanical Industrial Automation & Management Sys., AMIAMS, pp. 275-280 (2017)
Space layout planning with genetic algorithms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 19 September 2026
Prosecution Insights