DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 14, 19, 26, 29, 31, 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudiano (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0298866 A1)
Regarding claim 1:
Gaudiano teaches: a computer implemented method (claim 1, method for interactive customization of a computer generated item) comprising:
generating, by a system, prompting data for prompting a user of the system to define configuration data that specifies a model configuration, wherein the prompting data references a set of candidate models that are selectable by the user (any one of Figs. 1a, 1b or 2, which illustrate “prompting data” as user selectable sets of candidate models. In Figs. 1a and 1b, the candidate models are of avatars; in Fig. 2, the candidate models are of vehicles. Selection of any one of them defines configuration data that specifies a model configuration (i.e. of an avatar, or a vehicle, or whatever graphic object the model represents);
presenting the prompting data to the user (same mapping as generating step, presented to a user in an interface),
wherein the prompting data references the set of candidate models that are selectable by the user (same mapping as generating step);
receiving model configuration data from the user subsequent to the presenting the prompting data,
wherein the model configuration data received from the user specifies a custom model design of the user and references a previously stored model, which previously stored model, in response to data of the prompting data, has been selected as a template model for use in providing the custom model design of the user (see para. 52, which teaches that selectable objects (i.e. avatars) can be loaded as ones that were previously stored (i.e. a previously stored model). In this embodiment, a user selecting a model that was previously stored, for further customization, corresponds to a teaching of a previously stored model being selected for use in providing the custom model design. Also, a user can select other prompting data to specify a custom model design of the user. This includes, in non-limiting examples: selectable options specified in para. 52, selection to have a crossover and mutation of avatars (paras. 40-43), and/or using the “Tweak”, “Evolve” or “Explore” buttons of Fig. 2. See related descriptions). Selection of any of the above will alsogenerate model config data to be received for a custom model design);
generating an object representing model using data of the model configuration data received from the user see above Figs. 1a-2, user can manipulate and generate an object customize); and
sending the generated object representing model to the user (Background, can be sent as a character for user in video game or Second Like, such as “Need for Speed Underground” game, per para. 46).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes storing a certain model according to the custom model design into a data repository (par. 52, storing models for future use is known, accessible via the data repository associated with the system of Gaudiano);
evaluating the certain model for inclusion in a candidate set of candidate models for presentment to a second user of the system (para. 3, users, plural, can use the system/method of Gaudiano; in combination with para. 25, learn each user’s preferences to adapt results. Per para. 43-44, 47, users can even rank. This teaches the evaluation)); and
presenting subsequent prompting data to the second user in response to a determination from the evaluating that a criterion has been satisfied,
wherein the subsequent prompting data presented to the second user references the certain model (see e.g. paras. 43-44, and claims 3, 11, 12 and 15, using preference information or data to adjust prompting data/models to be shown/interface features is taught/suggested by Gaudiano, with additional motivation to provide all users with tailored, interactive interfaces),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 6, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the set of candidate models includes a previously-designed model previously designed by a second user of the system (par. 52, storing models for future use is known, accessible via the data repository associated with the system of Gaudiano, also para. 3, multiple users, such as a second user),
wherein the prompting data further references menu options for defining customized model surface properties (para. 5, for avatar models: body type, hair type/color, skin tone, facial features, clothing, are all surface properties; para. 48, for car models: color and body are surface properties. These can be prompting data in “Explore” panel, for example),
wherein the method includes determining user profile data of the user (para. 25, user preferences are profile data) and
wherein the generating the prompting data includes selecting the set of candidate models for referencing in the prompting data including the previously- designed model previously designed by the second user of the system, and selecting the menu options for defining customized model surface properties in dependence on the user profile data of the user (previously designed models can be shown for selection in a multi-user system, selection of surface properties also taught. See paras. 39 and 52, and above mapping),
wherein model configuration data received from the user references at least one surface property customization of the user (the model config data will include surface property customization in embodiments where same was customized in previously designed model) and
wherein the model configuration data received from the user references at least one accessory customization of the user (para. 5, clothing, weapons, accessories),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 14, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes presenting subsequent prompting data to a second user of the system (Gaudiano, Abstract, multiple users, such as a second user),
wherein the prompting data presented to the second user includes a model representation for selection by the second user that represents a stored model in accordance with the custom model design of the user (para. 52, loading models previously used is known, modifying such that the model is of another user that used the same system is an obvious modification of Gaudiano),
wherein the method includes receiving second model configuration data from the second user, the second model configuration data including a reference to the stored model according to the custom design of the user selected as a template model by the second user for development of a subsequent custom model design by the second user (see mapping to claim 1, basically using models according to designs of another user. Gaudiano is not particularly limited or restrictive to models loaded or modifiable by users across the system. Allowing for a model of another user to be loaded, as one “previously stored” is an obvious modification for one of ordinary skill), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 19, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26: see also claim 1.
The difference between claim 1 and 20 is in the last two steps, “a second object representing model” is added with the first object representing model (in claim 1), in the last generating and sending steps. See mapping below.
For the added “second object representing model” feature, this is taught in embodiments whereby the user generated two custom models for saving, which is one embodiment taught/suggested by Gaudiano. See also para. 50 of Gaudiano, user can “save one or more cars” (such as a first and second object representing model).
Modifying the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
a computer implemented method comprising:
generating, by a system, prompting data for prompting a user of the system to define configuration data that specifies a model configuration (claim 1);
presenting the prompting data to the user (claim 1);
receiving model configuration data from the user subsequent to the presenting the prompting data (claim 1),
wherein the model configuration data received from the user specifies a custom model design of the user and references a previously stored model, which previously stored model, in response to data of the prompting data, has been selected as a template model for use in providing the custom model design (claim 1);
generating a first object representing model (claim 1) and a second object representing model according to the custom model design of the user using data of the model configuration data received from the user (claim 1); and
sending the first object representing model and the second object representing model to the user (claim 1).
Regarding claim 29: see claim 14
These claims are similar; claim 29 being broader than claim 14. The same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 31:
Gaudiano teaches: the computer implemented method of claim 26, wherein the generating first and second object representing models includes generating the first object representing model in a first model file format and generating the second object representing model in a second model file format (para. 59-60, different file formats and scripting/programming languages can be used), and
wherein the previously stored model selected by the user as a template model is of model file format different from the first model file format and the second model file format (Id. The examiner also takes official notice that methods/systems capable of handling different file formats has been known several years/decades).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have included the above, motivated to have flexibility in programming design and implementation.
Regarding claim 39:
Gaudiano teaches: the computer implemented method of claim 26, wherein the method includes presenting prompting data to a second user of the system (e.g. Abstract, para. 3, Gaudiano is a multi-user system),
wherein the prompting data presented to the second user includes a model representation for selection by the second user that represents a stored model in accordance with the customized design of the user (para. 52 avatars or models previously store and loaded is taught, see also para. 49).
Modifying the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). That is, such to make available other models previously stored by other users to other users of the same system, is all of taught/suggested by Gaudiano, with additional motivation to share interactive data between users of an interactive multi-user system.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 40:
Gaudiano teaches: the computer implemented method of claim 26, wherein the method includes presenting prompting data to a second user of the system (e.g. Abstract, para. 3, Gaudiano is a multi-user system),
wherein the prompting data presented to the second user includes a model representation for selection by the second user that represents a stored model in accordance with the customized design of the user (para. 52 avatars or models previously store and loaded is taught, see also para. 49),
wherein the method includes receiving second model configuration data from the second user, the second model configuration data including an identifier of the stored model selected as a template model by the second user for development of a custom model design by the second user (see mapping to claim 1, second user can select a stored model as template model for customization, the identifier is what the system uses to retrieve the stored model).
Modifying the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). That is, such to make available other models previously stored by other users to other users of the same system, is all of taught/suggested by Gaudiano, with additional motivation to share interactive data between users of an interactive multi-user system.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudiano in view of Marey (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0343576).
Regarding claim 9: see also claim 6 (some features of claim 9 match those in claim 6, see below).
the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes storing a certain model according to the custom model design of the user into a data repository (claim 6 mapping);
evaluating the certain model for inclusion in a candidate set of candidate models for presentment to a second user of the system (claim 6 mapping);
presenting subsequent prompting data to the second user in response to a determination from the evaluating that a criterion has been satisfied (claim 6 mapping),
wherein the subsequent prompting data presented to the second user references the certain model (claim 6 mapping).
Regarding the remaining features of claim 9:
receiving subsequent model configuration data from the second user,
wherein the subsequent model configuration data specifies a subsequent custom model design of the second user and references the custom model design of the user as a selected template model for use in developing the subsequent custom model design by the second user (See mapping to claim 1, a second user using the system of Gaudiano (Abstract, a multi-user system)),
wherein the evaluating is dependent on a result of (a) subjecting asset data of the user to natural language processing and (b) subjecting asset data of the second user to natural language processing (Marey, para. 52, teaches that using natural language processing to perform sentiment analysis is known. A user whose sentiment is negative toward any particular asset data is relevant to the above evaluating step for inclusion. Also, “asset data” is a broad claim term, which the examiner is interpreting as any object or graphic data related to the models. This is a broad, reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicant’s specification; should Applicant desire a more required and narrow interpretation, this term needs to be amended) (also, Gaudiano teaches multiple users, as mapped above).
Modifying the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudiano in view of Sidman (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0216599).
Regarding claim 10: see also claim 6 (some features of claim 9 match those in claim 6, see below).
the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes storing a certain model according to the custom model design of the user into a data repository (claim 6 mapping);
evaluating the certain model for inclusion in a candidate set of candidate models for presentment to a second user of the system (claim 6 mapping);
presenting subsequent prompting data to the second user in response to a determination from the evaluating that a criterion has been satisfied (clam 6 mapping),
wherein the subsequent prompting data presented to the second user references the certain model (claim 6 mapping);
receiving subsequent model configuration data from the second user,
wherein the subsequent model configuration data specifies a subsequent custom model design of the second user and references the custom model design of the user as a selected template model for use in developing the subsequent custom model design by the second user (See mapping to claim 1, a second user using the system of Gaudiano (Abstract, a multi-user system)),
wherein the method includes, after the storing, maintaining a count of instances in which other users of the system have selected the certain model as a template model on which to base development of their respective custom model designs (see mapping re: Sidman reference below), and
wherein the evaluating is dependent on the count of instances in which other users of the system have selected the certain model as a template model on which to base development of their respective custom model designs (Sidman teaches that it is known to make more popular items more prominent, whereby popularity can be determined based on the number of time is selected. See e.g. paras. 343-55. Modifying the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, such to use popularity based on a count of other users selecting a model, per Sidman, and using that as a metric to determine inclusion of a model as a selectable candidate, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes iteratively storing into a data repository instances of model configuration data specifying custom model designs from multiple second users of the system (Gaudiano, Abstract: multiple user system plus para. 52, previously stored models, such as of other second users),
wherein the instances respectively include a reference to a template model used for providing the respective custom model design (Sidmam, para. 1584, using template indicators as labels attached to data is known), and
wherein one of the instances of the model configuration data references a certain stored model of the data repository according to the custom model design of the user as a template model (Sidman, para. 1584),
wherein the method includes presenting further prompting data to a further user (Gaudino, Figs. 1a-2, further prompting data is known),
wherein the further prompting data presents multiple selectable model representations in a hierarchical order, the hierarchical order determined in dependence on a respective template model referenced in the respective represented models of the hierarchical order so that models represented in the hierarchical order are represented in a lower hierarchical order than a referenced template model that they reference (Sidman, presenting selectable items (i.e. menu items) in a hierarchy is known (see claim 1). Modifying the applied references, in view of Sidman, such to assign hierarchy value to template referenced models are higher in order than one, is one embodiment of Sidman, and, alternatively, an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill),
wherein the multiple selectable model representations in a hierarchical order are active to permit selection by the further user of any one of the multiple selectable model representation to specify a template model for use in providing a custom model design of the further user (Id. and Gaudiano, user can select and make custom model designs, as mapped in claim 1 and throughout this office action),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 20, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the prompting data presents multiple selectable model representations in a hierarchical order, the multiple selectable model representations in the hierarchical order depicting a hierarchical relationship between at least one model and at least one template model associated to and used as a base to provide a customized model design defined by the at least one model (Sidman, claim 1, hierarchy of selectable items is known. The order depicting the claimed relationship is definition of hierarchy with both items selectable. Template models also taught by Sidman, mapped in claim 20),
wherein the model representation of the at least one template model is depicted in higher order hierarchy relative to the model representation of the at least one model (Id.),
wherein the model representation of the at least one template model is depicted to have a removed accessory relative to the model representation of the at least one model (obvious design feature, a template (i.e. a base model) having removed accessory to another model is an obvious design choice),
wherein the multiple selectable model representations in the hierarchical order are active to permit selection by the user of respective ones of the multiple selectable model representations to specify the template model for use in providing the custom model design of the user (Id. see mapping of first wherein clause), and
wherein the model configuration data specifies selection of the at least one template model as the template model for use in providing the custom model design of the user (see also mapping to claim 1, user selects template model, this becomes part of model config data), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 22, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudiano in view of Marey and further in view of Fahrendorff (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0056860).
Regarding claim 11: see also claims 6 and 9 (as mapped below)
the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes storing a certain model according to the custom model design of the user into a data repository (claim 6 mapping);
evaluating the certain model for inclusion in a candidate set of candidate models for presentment to a second user of the system (claim 6 mapping);
presenting subsequent prompting data to the second user in response to a determination from the evaluating that a criterion has been satisfied (claim 6 mapping),
wherein the subsequent prompting data presented to the second user references the certain model (claim 6 mapping).
receiving subsequent model configuration data from the second user (mapping to claim 9),
wherein the subsequent model configuration data specifies a subsequent custom model design of the second user and references the custom model design of the user as a selected template model for use in developing the subsequent custom model design by the second user (claim 9).
Regarding the remaining features of claim 11:
wherein the evaluating is dependent on a result of (a) subjecting asset data of the user to natural language processing for extraction of topic and sentiment parameter values and (b) subjecting asset data of the second user to natural language processing for extraction of topic and sentiment parameter values (Marey teaches NLP (natural language processing) for extraction of sentiment parameter values; and Gaudiano teaches multi-user systems. Re: NLP for topic, Fahrendorff teaches that it is known to use NLP to extract topics See Fahrendorff, para. 43, 44, 47, 54).
Modifying the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 11, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17, 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudiano in view of Indrasiri K, Siriwardena P. Microservices for the Enterprise: Designing, Developing, and Deploying. Apress; 2018 Nov 14 (“Indrasiri”).
Regarding claim 17:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes (a) interrogating a microservices message bus by a first model generating microservice that generates formatted models formatted according to a first file format to be rendered on a first enterprise model rendering system (Indrasiri, page 180: microservices message bus (or “event bus”, per the reference), is known. See also page 80, “Multiple Receivers”). Modifying the applied references, such that there is a microservice that generated formatted models according to a first file format (Gaudiano, different data formats are known, para. 60, alternatively, official notice is taken that different data formats have been known for decades) to be rendered on a first enterprise modeling system (Indrasiri teaches microservices for the enterprise, this is the Book’s title, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art. See also Indrasiri, Introduction, Ch. 1, Fig. 1-4 and “What is a Microservice” on page 7),
wherein the first model generating microservice has subscribed to messages published to the microservices bus having a first classification tag (Indrasiri, page 229-30, assigning tags to data that is transferring through microservices is known; page 70, 80, microservice subscribe functionality is known; page 86: message teaching: page 22-31, 380);
(b) interrogating the microservices message bus by a second model generating microservice that generates formatted models formatted according to a second file format to be rendered on a second enterprise model rendering system (see above mapping of wherein clause, interrogating between microservices is known. See also Ch. 7 Integrating Microservices, and Ch. 10, of Indrasiri. Respectfully, all of Indrasiri is available to one of ordinary of skill in the art as);
(c) publishing a message having the first classification tag to the microservices bus in response to the receiving the model configuration data; and responsively to the publishing,
(d) performing the generating the object representing model by the first model generating microservice that generates formatted models formatted according to a first file format to be rendered on the first enterprise model rendering system (steps c and d are two microservice models communicating via a bus, taught and mapped by Indrasiri, and these are to perform the functions of Gaudiano, mapped in claim 1, in enterprise model system, also per Indrasiri), for rendering, per Gaudiano),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 17, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additional motivation can be found in taking advantage of the benefits of microservice implementation in enterprise environments for performing and distributing tasks, per Indrasiri.
Regarding claim 23:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes generating a second object representing model in response to receiving configuration data of the model configuration data from the user (see mapping to claim 1, user generated another model),
wherein the generating the object representing model and the generating the second object representing model includes
invoking in response to the receiving model configuration data from the user, operation of a first microservice for generating the object representing model (see mapping to claim 17 and Indrasiri, operating a microservice for generating the object, per Gaudiano, is taught, obvious and predictable), and
invoking in response to the receiving model configuration data from the user operation of a second microservice for generating the second object representing model (see mapping to claim 17, applying a second microservice for generation of a second model is within purview of one of ordinary skill, presented with Indrasiri. See also Indrasiri, Ch. 1),
wherein the object representing model is configured to be rendered on a first enterprise model rendering system (see mapping to claim 17, Indrasiri teaches enterprise systems, one for rendering, such as Gaudiano describes, is an obvious modification), and
wherein the second object representing model is configured to be rendered on a second enterprise model rendering system (id),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 23, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additional motivation can be found in taking advantage of the benefits of microservice implementation in enterprise environments for performing and distributing tasks, per Indrasiri.
Regarding claim 33:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the computer implemented method of claim 26, wherein the generating first and second object representing models includes
invoking in response to the receiving model configuration data from the user, operation of a first microservice for generating the first object representing model (see mapping to claim 17 and Indrasiri, operating a microservice for generating the object, per Gaudiano, is taught, obvious and predictable), and
invoking in response to the receiving model configuration data from the user operation of a second microservice for generating the first object representing model (see mapping to claim 17, applying a second microservice for generation of a second model is within purview of one of ordinary skill, presented with Indrasiri. See also Indrasiri, Ch. 1),
wherein the first object representing model is configured to be rendered on a first enterprise model rendering system (see mapping to claim 17, Indrasiri teaches enterprise systems, one for rendering, such as Gaudiano describes, is an obvious modification), and
wherein the second object representing model is configured to be rendered on a second enterprise model rendering system (see mapping to claim 17, Indrasiri teaches enterprise systems, one for rendering, such as Gaudiano describes, is an obvious modification),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 33, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additional motivation can be found in taking advantage of the benefits of microservice implementation in enterprise environments for performing and distributing tasks, per Indrasiri.
Claim(s) 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudiano in view of Sidman and Indrasiri.
Regarding claim 41:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the computer implemented method of claim 26, wherein the method includes presenting prompting data to a second user of the system (Gaudiano, Abstract, multiple users known),
wherein the prompting data presented to the second user includes a model representation for selection by the second user that represents a stored model in accordance with the customized design of the user (see mapping to claim 19),
wherein the method includes receiving second model configuration data from the second user (mapping to claim 19), the second model configuration data including an identifier of the stored model selected as a template model by the second user for development of a custom model design by the second user (claim 40 mapping),
wherein the generating first and second object representing models includes generating the first object representing model in a first model file format and generating the second object representing model in a second model file format (Gaudiano, different file formats known, para. 52; examiner alternatively takes official notice that different file formats have been known for decades), and
wherein the model selected by the user as a template model is of model file format different from the first model file format and the second model file format (mapping to claims 9 or 10, template models, different file formats known per Gaudiano and/or official notice),
wherein the generating first and second object representing models includes
invoking in response to the receiving model configuration data from the user, operation of a first microservice for generating the first object representing model (see claim 17, Indrasiri, microservices for tasks taught by Gaudiano) and
invoking in response to the receiving model configuration data from the user operation of a second microservice for generating the first object representing model (see claim 17, Indrasiri, microservices for tasks taught by Gaudiano),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 41, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additional motivation can be found in taking advantage of the benefits of microservice implementation in enterprise environments for performing and distributing tasks, per Indrasiri.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36 and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, relevant to graphics processing.
* * * * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613