Patent Application 17588627 - Automated Architectural Design - Rejection
Appearance
Patent Application 17588627 - Automated Architectural Design
Title: Automated Architectural Design
Application Information
- Invention Title: Automated Architectural Design
- Application Number: 17588627
- Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-01-31T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-01-31T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 703
- National Sub-Class: 001000
- Examiner Employee Number: 99822
- Art Unit: 2188
- Tech Center: 2100
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 10
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
- US 0281561đ
- US 0192111đ
- US 0397760đ
- US 0169106đ
- US 0237795đ
- US 0245743đ
- US 0161404đ
- US 0327264đ
Office Action Text
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on February 28, 2022. Objection of claim 19 for minor informalities. Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Rejection of claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11-15, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney. Rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, Shulman, and Ganihar. Rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney and Suto. Rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, Suto, and Shulman. Rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, Suto, and Soflin. Rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, and further in view of Ganihar. Rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney and Niekerk. Rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, and further in view of Shulman. Rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, and further in view of Ganihar. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Objections Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recites âA system one or more computers...â One or more words are missing from the claim, such as âA system having one or more computersâŚâ Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculations and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because courts have found that steps of data gathering and recitations of generic computer components and ideas of solutions are not significantly more than a judicial exception. Claim 1 Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification): Claim 1 Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1 A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, by a first computing device, property characterization data for a first real property interest; applying the property characterization data to an architectural design compliance engine of the first computing device to obtain a first metric indicative of compliance of the first real property interest to an architectural design rule set; and generating, by the first computing device, a proposed re-design plan for the first real property interest associated with a second metric, wherein the second metric is indicative of greater compliance with the architectural design rule set than the first metric. Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculation An engine that calculates a metric includes performing one or more mathematical calculations. For example, the property categorization data can be provided to a machine learning model, which is comprised of one or more functions that outputs a numerical value. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Abstract Idea: Mental Process A re-design plan can be generated in the human mind and/or with the aid of a pencil and paper or a generic computing device (e.g., a architectural CAD program executing on a generic computer). See 2106. 04(a)(2), Subsection III. Alternatively, the limitation is an idea of a solution (see below). Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification): Claim 1 Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2 A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, by a first computing device, property characterization data for a first real property interest; applying the property characterization data to an architectural design compliance engine of the first computing device to obtain a first metric indicative of compliance of the first real property interest to an architectural design rule set; and generating, by the first computing device, a proposed re-design plan for the first real property interest associated with a second metric, wherein the second metric is indicative of greater compliance with the architectural design rule set than the first metric. Reciting a generic computer is mere instructions to apply an exception which does not integrate the additional element into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). Obtaining data is the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Obtaining data is the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Alternative to the limitation being a mental process, the limitation recites an idea of a solution that does not recite, with specificity, how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Courts have found such a recitation to not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. In this instance, courts have found recitations of generic computer components to be insignificantly more than the judicial exception. See Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, courts have found ideas of solutions to be insignificantly more. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Finally, data gathering has been found by courts to be insignificantly more. See, e.g., Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 2 Claim 2 recites wherein the architectural design rule set is based on Vastu Shastra design principles or Feng Shui design principles. The limitation merely specifies limitations that are part of a judicial exception without reciting additional elements. Thus, the claim does not recite limitations that integrate the judicial application into a practical application and/or that are significantly more. Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 3 Claim 3 recites wherein the property characterization data comprises location characterization data that characterizes a location of the first real property interest. The limitation merely specifies limitations that are part of a judicial exception without reciting additional elements. Thus, the claim does not recite limitations that integrate the judicial application into a practical application and/or that are significantly more. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 4 Claim 4 recites wherein the location characterization data comprises orientation data characterizing an orientation of the first real property interest relative to a fixed location point. The limitation merely specifies limitations that are part of a judicial exception without reciting additional elements. Thus, the claim does not recite limitations that integrate the judicial application into a practical application and/or that are significantly more. Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 5 Claim 5 recites wherein the property characterization data comprises neighborhood characterization data characterizing landscape features of an area in which the first real property interest is located. The limitation merely specifies limitations that are part of a judicial exception without reciting additional elements. Thus, the claim does not recite limitations that integrate the judicial application into a practical application and/or that are significantly more. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 6 Claim 6 recites wherein the neighborhood characterization data comprises one or more of flora data characterizing arrangement of flora in a vicinity of the first real property interest, street data characterizing an arrangement of one or more streets in the vicinity of the first real property interest, and structural element data characterizing an arrangement of one or more building structures in the vicinity of the first real property interest. The limitation merely specifies limitations that are part of a judicial exception without reciting additional elements. Thus, the claim does not recite limitations that integrate the judicial application into a practical application and/or that are significantly more. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 7 Claim 7 recites wherein the property characterization data comprises one or more images of the first real property. The limitation merely specifies limitations that are part of a judicial exception without reciting additional elements. Thus, the claim does not recite limitations that integrate the judicial application into a practical application and/or that are significantly more. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 8 Claim 8 recites: wherein applying the property characterization data to an architectural design compliance engine to obtain the first metric comprises: parsing the property characterization data into a plurality of property categories; The limitation recites a mental step that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper. For example, property characterization data can include one or more descriptors of a property and parsing the data can include selecting a category for each of the descriptors. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. for each category of the plurality of categories, deriving a respective category rating by evaluating the category against a corresponding rule in the architectural design rule set to provide a plurality of category ratings; and If the derivation is performed by the compliance engine, the limitation recites a mathematical concept that includes, for example, providing the category to a trained model, which provides, as output, a numerical value. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Absent the model performing the step, a category value can be derived by a human using pencil and paper and/or a generic computer as an aid. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. For example, for each parsed datum that is part of a category, a numerical value can be assigned to the descriptor based on its importance and/or influence on the category. The final category value can be an average or sum of the descriptor values. Thus, the step can include observation, evaluation, and judgment by a human. deriving the first metric based on the plurality of category ratings. If the derivation is performed by the compliance engine, the limitation recites a mathematical concept that includes, for example, the category ratings to a trained model, which provides, as output, a numerical value. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Absent the model, the step can include one or more mathematical equations that can be performed by a human using pencil and paper and/or a generic computing device, such as adding values and/or averaging values. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. See also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978). According, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 9 Claim 9 recites wherein parsing the property characterization data comprises applying the property characterization data to a neural network to obtain the plurality of property categories. A neural network, which is comprised of one or more functions that outputs a numerical value, performs one or more mathematical calculations,. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 10 Claim 10 recites wherein parsing the property characterization data comprises deriving an orientation of one or more features of the first real property. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Determining an orientation of a property can include reviewing a map of the property and selecting a cardinal direction to which the property faces. Further, the orientation of a feature can include determining a location for one or more objects that are present within the property (e.g., location of flora in relation to a house). Thus, the limitation recites a mental process. Claim 11 Claim 11 recites wherein generating, by the architectural design compliance engine, the proposed re-design plan for the first real property interest comprises modifying a layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set. As previously indicated, an engine that calculates a metric (e.g., a plan) includes performing one or more mathematical calculations. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 11 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 12 Claim 12 recites wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest comprises applying the property characterization data to a neural network to obtain the proposed re-design plan, wherein the neural network is trained to modify property design plans to have improved compliance with the architectural rule set. As previously indicated, a neural network is comprised of one or more mathematical functions and thus the limitation is a mathematical concept. Accordingly, claim 12 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 13 Claim 13 recites wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set comprises changing a design size of a room of the first real property interest to increase a compliancy rating of the room with a corresponding rule in the architectural design rule set. The claim recites an idea of a solution without providing additional information that claims how the solution is accomplished. Ideas of solutions are an additional element that courts have found to be insignificantly more. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, claim 13 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 14 Claim 14 recites wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set comprises changing a design orientation of a room of the first real property interest to increase a compliancy rating of the room with a corresponding rule in the architectural design rule set. The claim recites an idea of a solution without providing additional information that claims how the solution is accomplished. Ideas of solutions are an additional element that courts have found to be insignificantly more. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 15 Claim 15 recites wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set comprises changing a design location of a room of the first real property interest to increase a compliancy rating of the room with a corresponding rule in the architectural design rule set. The claim recites an idea of a solution without providing additional information that claims how the solution is accomplished. Ideas of solutions are an additional element that courts have found to be insignificantly more. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 16 Claim 16 recites wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set comprises modifying a flora arrangement design of the first real property interest to increase a compliancy rating of the first real property with the architectural design rule set. The claim recites an idea of a solution without providing additional information that claims how the solution is accomplished. Ideas of solutions are an additional element that courts have found to be insignificantly more. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 17 Claim 17 recites wherein generating, by the architectural design compliance engine, the proposed re-design plan for the first real property interest comprises constructing a three-dimensional image of the proposed re- design plan. Constructing a three-dimensional image can be performed by a human using a CAD program as an aid (i.e., a mental process) and/or can include one or more mathematical calculations to convert a series of dimensions into a three-dimensional representation (i.e., a mathematical concept). Accordingly, claim 17 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 18 Claim 18 recites wherein generating, by the architectural design compliance engine, the proposed re-design plan for the first real property interest comprises: applying a first weighting to a first compliancy rating associated with the proposed re-design plan to provide a first weighted compliancy rating; applying a second weighting to a second compliancy rating associated with the proposed re-design plan to provide a second weighted compliancy rating, wherein the second weighting is different from the first weighting, and wherein the first weighting and the second weighting are defined in accordance with the architectural design rule set; and deriving the second metric based on the first compliancy rating and the second compliancy rating. Assigning weights to variables is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more operations on data. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 19 Claim 19 recites A system one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: a method that is substantially the same as the method of claim 1. The limitation of a system is a recitation of generic computing components, which is an additional element that is equivalent of reciting âapply itâ to an abstract idea. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 20 Claims 20 recites One or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: a method that is substantially the same as the method of claim 1. The limitation of a system is a recitation of generic computing components, which is an additional element that is equivalent of reciting âapply itâ to an abstract idea. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan, et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0245743, hereinafter âSrinivasan,â in view of Whitney, et al., (U.S. Patent Pub. No 2021/0397760, hereinafter âWhitneyâ). Claim 1 Srinivasan discloses: A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, by a first computing device, property characterization data for a first real property interest; One such method among others comprises receiving, by a computing device, a building permit application file for a construction project, wherein the building permit application file includes a BIM or CAD or IFC or PDF file of the construction project⌠Srinivasan at [0095]. The âbuilding permit applicationâ is analogous to âproperty characterization data.â applying the property characterization data to an architectural design compliance engine of the first computing device to obtain a first metric indicative of compliance of the first real property interest to an architectural design rule set; and generating, by the computing device, a building code conformance report indicating whether the building permit application file has passed a check for the building code conformance⌠Srinivasan at [0095]. The âbuilding code conformance reportâ is analogous to âa first metric.â generating, As part of this analysis, a previously stored version of the building permit application file may be retrieved and compared against an updated version of the building application file. Upon completion of the review and analysis, the Applicant may be notified, in step 810, that corrections are required and additional information will need to be reviewed or the Applicant may be granted a building permit, in step 810, if corrections are not required, as depicted in the figure. Srinivasan at [0094]. The âpreviously stored versionâ is analogous to an initially provided âbuilding permit applicationâ and the âupdated versionâ is associated with a ânotificationâ (analogous to a âsecond metricâ) that indicates âgreater compliance with the architectural design rule setâ when the user is notified that the permit has been granted. Srinivasan does not appear to disclose: generating, by the first computing device, a proposed re-design plan for the first real property interest Whitney, which is analogous art, discloses: generating, by the first computing device, a proposed re-design plan for the first real property interest In some instances, this first space program data (which may, e.g., be received by generative design computing platform 110 at step 205) may be set by or for an occupant of the first physical space, and may be received as user input received via an electronic form or surveyâŚ[The occupant may select]âŚpossible design elements that match their vision for the first physical space. As illustrated below, generative design computing platform 110 may use any and/or all of this user input in generating a plurality of space models for the first physical space. Additionally or alternatively, in receiving the first space information, the generative design computing platform 110 may receive user input defining specific preferences for one or more design elements of the first physical spaceâŚAdditionally or alternatively, in receiving the first space information, the generative design computing platform 110 may receive information indicating trends in third party data, industry standards, best-in-class floor plans, and/or other external data. As also illustrated below, generative design computing platform 110 may use any and/or all of this information in generating a plurality of space models for the first physical space. Whitney at [0060]. The âuser inputâ is analogous to the âproperty characterization dataâ and the âtrends in third party data [and] industry standardsâ is analogous to the âsecond metric,â which indicates one or more requirements of the user design that need to be changed to comply with the architectural rule set. âGenerating a plurality of space models for the first physical spaceâ is analogous to a âre-design.â Whitney is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to automatically generating a design of a real property. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the method of Srinivasan with the generative model design of Whitney to result in a system that can, based on determining one or more aspects of a design that do not comply with architectural design rules, generate a property plan that complies with the rules . Motivation to combine includes improving on the system of Srinivasan so that the user does not just receive a report that indicates non-compliance but also is provided with a compliant alternative based on the original design, thus reducing time and expense for the user in having to propose a new design, go through the compliance process, and receive another report. Claim 5 Srinivasan does not appear to disclose: wherein the property characterization data comprises neighborhood characterization data characterizing landscape features of an area in which the first real property interest is located. Whitney discloses: wherein the property characterization data comprises neighborhood characterization data characterizing landscape features of an area in which the first real property interest is located. FIGS. 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, and 1G depict illustrative data structures for various models that may be generated, stored, and/or otherwise used in accordance with one or more example embodiments.âŚLot dimension data 180a may, for instance, include information defining one or more dimensions and/or other features of a lot or other parcel of land where one or more buildings and/or other structures may be located. Exterior walls data 180b may include information defining the locations of and/or other features of one or more exterior walls of such buildings and/or other structures, and exterior features data 180c may include information defining other exterior features (e.g., windows, landscaping, exterior columns, decorations, etc.) of such buildings and/or other structures. Whitney at [0048]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide, as part of the property information disclosed in Srinivasan with the neighborhood information disclosed in Whitney (e.g., exterior wall, landscaping, dĂŠcor) to increase the amount of information that can be utilized to generate a design for a property. A person would be motivated to combine because, with additional inputs, more complex rules can be checked for compliance, thereby increasing the robustness of the system. Claim 8 Srinivasan discloses: wherein applying the property characterization data to an architectural design compliance engine to obtain the first metric comprises: generating, by the computing device, a building code conformance report indicating whether the building permit application file has passed a check for the building code conformance⌠Srinivasan at [0095]. The âbuilding code conformance reportâ is analogous to âa first metric.â parsing the property characterization data into a plurality of property categories; The IFC schema encompasses a wide range of data objects, since the schema involves the whole lifecycle of a building and its environment. Thus, it is recommended that each discipline domain should only consider a subset of the full IFC schema to avoid processing an overwhelming amount of data. A Model View Definition (MVD) is developed as the tool for creating model subsets that are pertinent to the specific data exchange between domain application types. MVD diagram describes the concepts and attributes that will be used in the data exchange, as well as the schema and relationships between these concepts and attributes. In general, the exchange models are transformed from the IDM into various concepts. Each concept, in turn, is described with several attributes and relationships. For example, a âType of Constructionâ concept may have attributes such as Type I-A, Type II-A, Type III-A, Type III-B, etc. Each of these attributes may have specific governing rules such as the structural frame, exterior walls, ceiling, and roof assembly. The concluding phase is the translation of the MVD into implementation IFC entities, attributes, relationships and properties as required by the IFC schema. Srinivasan at [0082]. for each category of the plurality of categories, deriving a respective category rating by evaluating the category against a corresponding rule in the architectural design rule set to provide a plurality of category ratings; and The Code Conformance Checking task 730 for architectural design process can involve receiving a request from the exchange models (EMs) in step 731 and then pass the BIM data to code checking modules, which can include the architectural design checking module 732, structural design checking module 733, MEP design checking module 734, and module 735 that can check for any other requirements, such as fire protection. These modules can, e.g., check for allowable building areas and heights, check for means for egress, verify accessibility, verify roofs and roof assemblies, check for requirements for elevators and conveying systems, check for detailed use and occupancy requirements, etc. Srinivasan at [0079]. The âdesign checking moduleâ checks whether the BiM data (analogous to âproperty characterization dataâ) includes data pertaining to particular requirements (analogous to âcategoriesâ corresponding to a âruleâ). The compliance with the requirement is a âratingâ for the requirement. deriving the first metric based on the plurality of category ratings. Outputs of the respective design checking modules can be supplied as inputs to a verification report model 740 for compiling such that this information can be supplied as input to a results reporting engine 750. The results reporting engine 750 can output a report that is provided to a user system 130 and/or an external system 140. Srinivasan at [0079]. Claim 9 Srinivasan discloses: wherein parsing the property characterization data comprises applying the property characterization data to a neural network to obtain the plurality of property categories. Referring back to FIG. 4, the higher-Order Level II phase of the exemplary GAF centers on the development of IDM (Information Delivery Manual) and MVD (Model View Definitions) that allows the building permit application file data to be compared to the relevant codes and regulations. The development of IDM for building code specifications starts with a description of data exchange functional requirements and workflow situations for interactions between building permit application file data (e.g., BIM model data) and the conditions specified in building codes. This is demonstrated in the process map of FIG. 7. An exemplary system uses neural NLP techniques and/or deep neural network-style machine learning/Artificial Intelligence. Srinivasan at [0076]. The âBiM model dataâ is analogous to âproperty characterization dataâ and the âconditions specified in building codesâ are âcategoriesâ of compliance issues. Claim 11 Srinivasan does not disclose: wherein generating, by the architectural design compliance engine, the proposed re-design plan for the first real property interest comprises modifying a layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set. Whitney discloses: wherein generating, by the architectural design compliance engine, the proposed re-design plan for the first real property interest comprises modifying a layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set. In doing so, the first designer user computing device 140 may allow users to modify variables that may control, alter, and/or otherwise affect the layout of a space model and/or other parameters of a space model. For instance, the first designer user computing device 140 may display and/or otherwise present one or more user-selectable controls allowing a user to modify variables such as circulation percentage (which may, e.g., impact corridor width and/or other parameters affecting circulation of individuals within the space), group space percentage (which may, e.g., impact the relative amount of space allocated to common space), office and workstation size (which may, e.g., impact the sizes of various work points to optimize for social distancing requirements), sharing ratio (which may, e.g., impact whether and to what extent workspaces are configured as shared hot spots instead of as reserved desks), and/or other variables. Whitney at [0083]. The user-modified values are analogous to âarchitectural rule setâ and based on the variables selected by the user, the layout can be modified by the system. Claim 12 Srinivasan does not disclose: wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest comprises applying the property characterization data to a neural network to obtain the proposed re-design plan, wherein the neural network is trained to modify property design plans to have improved compliance with the architectural rule set. Whitney discloses: wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest comprises applying the property characterization data to a neural network to obtain the proposed re-design plan, wherein the neural network is trained to modify property design plans to have improved compliance with the architectural rule set. At step 206, the generative design computing platform 110 may load a first geometry model from a database storing one or more geometry models (e.g., stored in the memory 112 or at the internal data server 120). In loading the first geometry model, the generative design computing platform 110 may load information defining a first plurality of design rules that may be part of and/or otherwise associated with the first geometry model, such as design rules that control and/or affect the quantities, locations, sizes, and/or other features of various space model design elements, such as blocks, settings, furniture, and/or other elements (e.g., number of blocks, settings, furniture, and/or other features; types of blocks, settings, furniture, and/or other features; locations of blocks, settings, furniture, and/or other feature; locations of hallways; and/or other features). In some instances, in loading the first geometry model, the generative design computing platform 110 may select the first geometry model from a plurality of geometry models using a machine learning engine trained on one or more best-in-class designs. For example, in loading the first geometry model, the generative design computing platform 110 may select a geometry model that was generated and/or produced at step 203 using the machine learning engine 112 d. Additionally or alternatively, in loading the first geometry model, the generative design computing platform 110 may select the first geometry model based on the first space program data (e.g., received at step 205). For example, the architectural details of the physical space, organizational details of the physical space, work style details of the physical space, and/or budget details of the physical space may affect the selection of the first geometry model and thus may be used by generative design computing platform 110 as selection parameters in selecting the first geometry model. Whitney at [0061]. A neural network is a type of âmachine learning model.â Claim 13 Srinivasan does not disclose: wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set comprises changing a design size of a room of the first real property interest to increase a compliancy rating of the room with a corresponding rule in the architectural design rule set. Whitney discloses: wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set comprises changing a design size of a room of the first real property interest to increase a compliancy rating of the room with a corresponding rule in the architectural design rule set. For each of the subset of the plurality of block models, the generative design computing platform 110 may generate a plurality of settings models, and each settings model may indicate different office or environment settings within different blocks, such as the specific locations of offices, meeting rooms, common (shared) spaces, and/or other settings within different blocks, as well as other features of these various settings, such as their size, shape, quantity, intended purpose, and/or other features. In addition, each settings model (which may, e.g., be generated by the generative design computing platform 110) may correspond to a particular block model of the subset of the plurality of block models. Whitney at [0066]. The âplurality of settings modelsâ are analogous to a layout of the property, which can change size based on the âvarious settingsâ to comply with the requirements of the user. Claim 14 Srinivasan does not disclose: wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set comprises changing a design orientation of a room of the first real property interest to increase a compliancy rating of the room with a corresponding rule in the architectural design rule set. Whitney discloses: wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set comprises changing a design orientation of a room of the first real property interest to increase a compliancy rating of the room with a corresponding rule in the architectural design rule set. For each of the subset of the plurality of block models, the generative design computing platform 110 may generate a plurality of settings models, and each settings model may indicate different office or environment settings within different blocks, such as the specific locations of offices, meeting rooms, common (shared) spaces, and/or other settings within different blocks, as well as other features of these various settings, such as their size, shape, quantity, intended purpose, and/or other features. In addition, each settings model (which may, e.g., be generated by the generative design computing platform 110) may correspond to a particular block model of the subset of the plurality of block models. Whitney at [0066]. Claim 15 Srinivasan does not disclose: wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set comprises changing a design location of a room of the first real property interest to increase a compliancy rating of the room with a corresponding rule in the architectural design rule set. Whitney discloses: wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set comprises changing a design location of a room of the first real property interest to increase a compliancy rating of the room with a corresponding rule in the architectural design rule set. For each of the subset of the plurality of block models, the generative design computing platform 110 may generate a plurality of settings models, and each settings model may indicate different office or environment settings within different blocks, such as the specific locations of offices, meeting rooms, common (shared) spaces, and/or other settings within different blocks, as well as other features of these various settings, such as their size, shape, quantity, intended purpose, and/or other features. In addition, each settings model (which may, e.g., be generated by the generative design computing platform 110) may correspond to a particular block model of the subset of the plurality of block models. Whitney at [0066]. Claim 19 Srinivasan discloses: A system one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: System 200 preferably includes one or more processors 210. Processor(s) 210 may comprise a central processing unit (CPU). Srinivasan at [0027]. The remainder of the claim recites a method that is substantially the same as the method of claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney. Claim 20 Srinivasan discloses: One or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: System 200 preferably includes a main memory 215 and may also include a secondary memory 220. Main memory 215 provides storage of instructions and data for programs executing on processor 210, such as one or more of the functions and/or modules discussed herein. Srinivasan at [0029]. The remainder of the claim recites a method that is substantially the same as the method of claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, and further in view of Shulman, et al., (U.S. Patent Pub. No 2008/0281561, hereinafter âShulmanâ) and Ganihar, et al., (U.S. Patent No. 11,354,855, hereinafter âGaniharâ). Claim 2 Srinivasan and Whitney do not disclose: wherein the architectural design rule set is based on Vastu Shastra design principles or Feng Shui design principles. Shulman, which is analogous art, discloses: wherein the architectural design rule set is based Alternatively the user can opt to draw the plan directly into the form, perhaps using a basic CAD software module 1224 provided. Note that the orientation of North 1226 is generally a required field, since the orientation of a dwelling or office space is critical to understand the natural lighting and, various Feng Shui considerations regarding the space. Shulman at [0075]. See also Shulman at [007]-[0014]. Shulman is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to using an automated system for proposing a design of a property based on user preferences and adherence to a rule set. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the building code compliance of Srinivasan with the disclosed Feng Shui consideration of Shulman to result in a system that takes property information, including orientation, checks for compliance with Feng Shui considerations, and provides a re-design of the original resign, as disclosed in Whitney. A person would be motivated to automatically apply the complex principles of Feng Shui automatically, thus allowing a user to design a property that fits the aesthetic without requiring knowledge of all of its rules, thus reducing errors caused by non-compliance. Shulman does not disclose: wherein the architectural design rule set is based Ganihar, which is analogous art, discloses: Further, the two-dimensional floor plan graph generation module 216 can also allow the user to manually identify the type of room. In other embodiment, the type of the room can be determined based on various factors such as learning the historical data, dimensions of various physical spaces and vastu compliance. Ganihar at col. 14, lines 31-36. Ganihar is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to generative design of properties. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the building code compliance of Srinivasan with the disclosed Vastu Shastra principles of Shulman to result in a system that takes property information, checks for compliance with Vastu Shastra principles, and provides a re-design of the original resign, as disclosed in Whitney. A person would be motivated to automatically apply the complex principles of Vastu Shastra automatically, thus allowing a user to design a property that fits the aesthetic without requiring knowledge of all of its rules, thus reducing errors caused by non-compliance. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, and further in view of Suto, et al., (U.S. Patent No. 12,061,852, hereinafter âSutoâ). Claim 3 Srinivasan and Whitney do not appear to disclose: wherein the property characterization data comprises location characterization data that characterizes a location of the first real property interest. Suto, which is analogous art, discloses: wherein the property characterization data comprises location characterization data that characterizes a location of the first real property interest. The environmental mapping program 110 may utilize the comprehensive database in conjunction with building information to analyze the smart building. Building information may include, but is not limited to including, square footage, property size, location, material used in construction, window types, year built, blueprints, roofing details, architecture, information on appliances, amongst others. Suto at col. 8, lines 39-43. Suto is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to determining a property design based on compliance with one or more factors. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the claimed invention, to take into account the location of a property as property characterization data to determine compliance with one or more rules. Motivation to combine includes making the system more robust by allowing additional information, apart from the bounds of the property, to be utilized in determining compliance, thus allowing more complex rules to constrain property design. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, Suto, and Shulman. Claim 4 Srinivasan and Whitney do not appear to disclose: wherein the location characterization data comprises orientation data characterizing an orientation of the first real property interest relative to a fixed location point. Shulman discloses: wherein the location characterization data comprises orientation data characterizing an orientation of the first real property interest relative to a fixed location point. Alternatively the user can opt to draw the plan directly into the form, perhaps using a basic CAD software module 1224 provided. Note that the orientation of North 1226 is generally a required field, since the orientation of a dwelling or office space is critical to understand the natural lighting and, various Feng Shui considerations regarding the space. Shulman at [0075]. The âfixed pointâ is north in this instance. The user inputs design plans that are oriented according to the top of the image being north in the physical location. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include orientation as part of the inputted location characterization data to result in a system that takes into account the cardinal direction orientation of the property when proposing re-designs. Motivation to combine includes proposing re-designs that require a particular direction to be compliant with a rule, such as a Feng Shui principle, thus improving suggested re-designs. Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, Suto, and further in view of Soflin, et al., (U.S. Patent No. 11,263,361, hereinafter âSoflinâ). Claim 6 Srinivasan does not appear to disclose: wherein the neighborhood characterization data comprises one or more of flora data characterizing arrangement of flora in a vicinity of the first real property interest, street data characterizing an arrangement of one or more streets in the vicinity of the first real property interest, and structural element data characterizing an arrangement of one or more building structures in the vicinity of the first real property interest. Whitney discloses: wherein the neighborhood characterization data comprises one or more of flora data characterizing arrangement of flora in a vicinity of the first real property interest, FIGS. 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, and 1G depict illustrative data structures for various models that may be generated, stored, and/or otherwise used in accordance with one or more example embodiments.âŚLot dimension data 180 a may, for instance, include information defining one or more dimensions and/or other features of a lot or other parcel of land where one or more buildings and/or other structures may be located. Exterior walls data 180 b may include information defining the locations of and/or other features of one or more exterior walls of such buildings and/or other structures, and exterior features data 180 c may include information defining other exterior features (e.g., windows, landscaping, exterior columns, decorations, etc.) of such buildings and/or other structures. Whitney at [0048]. Soflin, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses: wherein the neighborhood characterization data comprises one or more of flora data characterizing arrangement of flora in a vicinity of the first real property interest, street data characterizing an arrangement of one or more streets in the vicinity of the first real property interest, and structural element data characterizing an arrangement of one or more building structures in the vicinity of the first real property interest. The logical model 100 may include a foundational layer (110) corresponding to the physical environment within which the building is to be erected. This foundational layer 110 may include not only the building itself but information about the surrounding lot and/or vicinity.âŚThe foundational layer 110 may include data associated with landscaping and landscape engineering,âŚaccess to transportation networks;âŚtraffic volumes and street/highway access; future unbuilt infrastructure (e.g., unbuilt highways or mass transit), parking requirements and structures; and local amenities. Soflin at col. 3, lines 21-37. Soflin is analogous art to the claimed invention because are related to generating a virtual building plan to be used to construct a physical building. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data, to include exterior features of a property, such as landscaping, neighboring buildings, and/or streets, with additional interior properties to determine compliance of the proposed structure with rules sets. Motivation to combine includes generating a system that is more robust by allowing more types of input data and that can be utilized with a greater number of architectural rules. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, and further in view of Ganihar. Claim 7 Srinivasan and Whitney do not appear to disclose: wherein the property characterization data comprises one or more images of the first real property. Ganihar discloses: wherein the property characterization data comprises one or more images of the first real property. An aspect of the present disclosure pertains to a three-dimensional building model generation system, comprising:âŚone or more routines operable to generate a three-dimensional model pertaining to a floor plan; and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory storage device and operable to execute the one or more routines, wherein the one or more routines include: a two-dimensional image receive module, which when executed by the one or more processors, receives a two-dimensional image pertaining to the floor plan; Ganihar at col. 2, lines 40-50. It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the redesign system of the references with the image input of Ganihar to result in a system that allows image data as input to determine a redesign based on architectural rules. Motivation to combine includes improving the ease of use of the system by allowing the user to capture images of an existing property and directly provide the images as input without additional requirements. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, and further in view of Niekerk, et al., (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0237795, hereinafter âNiekerkâ). Claim 10 Srinivasan and Whitney do not appear to disclose: wherein parsing the property characterization data comprises deriving an orientation of one or more features of the first real property. Niekerk discloses: wherein parsing the property characterization data comprises deriving an orientation of one or more features of the first real property. The sensor data and the construction site data is analyzed to identify the various objects of building depicted in the views, and maps the objects represented in the sensor data to corresponding objects represented in the construction site data. The data is analyzed to detect discrepancies between objects of the two views. For example, in the example where a pipe sleeve is installed at an incorrect location, the pipe sleeve represented in the sensor data is mapped to the corresponding pipe sleeve represented in the construction site data. A determination is made based on the mapping that a location of the installed pipe sleeve is not located as indicated by the construction site data. That is, a determination is made that the installation discrepancy is above a predetermined threshold. Niekerk at [0026]. The location of an object in relation to a structure is analogous to an âorientationâ of the object. Niekerk is analogous art because both are related to analyzing input of a real property to determine compliance with one or more rules. 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 the location verification method of Niekerk with the redesign system of the other references to generate a system that can identify non-compliance of a part of a structure and provide, in addition to a notification of non-compliance, a redesign that indicates how the structure can be adjusted to better comply with rules. Motivation to combine includes providing additional information to the system to generate a redesign, thus allowing additional rules to be checked. Doing so would allow the system to be utilized for more rule sets. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, and further in view of Shulman. Claim 16 Srinivasan and Whitney do not appear to disclose: wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set comprises modifying a flora arrangement design of the first real property interest to increase a compliancy rating of the first real property with the architectural design rule set. Shulman discloses: wherein modifying the layout of the first real property interest in accordance with the architectural design rule set comprises modifying a flora arrangement design of the first real property interest to increase a compliancy rating of the first real property with the architectural design rule set. The term furniture as used herein includes any movable objects provided within a space, and includes practical pieces of furniture such as chairs and tables, furnishings such as curtains internal non-load bearing walls and ornamental pieces such as vases, plants, sculptures, pictures and the like. Shulman at [0062]. The system 100 thereby advises the client regarding the locations of light fittings, furniture and the like, in accordance with the design and layout of the space, such as, inter alia, the size, shape, window positions, orientation and intended use thereof. Shulman at [0070]. The system âadvises the clientâ (suggests a redesign) as to where to place furniture, which can include plants (i.e., âfloraâ). 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 the flora arrangement of Shulman with the layout modifying in Whitney to result in a system that suggests modifying a property by changing location of flora. Motivation to combine includes allowing for more variability in architectural rules that can be checked, thus allowing for the same system to be utilized for additional types of rules. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, and further in view of Ganihar. Claim 17 Ganihar discloses: wherein generating, by the architectural design compliance engine, the proposed re-design plan for the first real property interest comprises constructing a three-dimensional image of the proposed re- design plan. FIGS. 7A-B illustrates an exemplary representation of an example conversion of a 2D image to a 3D model in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. As illustrated, FIG. 7A represent another hand drawn sketch pertaining to a floor plan that can be converted into a 3D model as illustrated in FIG. 7B using embodiments of the present disclosure. Ganihar at col. 18, lines 34-40. 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 the redesign system of the other references with the 3-dimensional rendering of Ganihar to result in a system that provides redesign plans as a 3-dimensional image. Motivation to combine includes allowing greater flexibility to the user as to how to receive redesign suggestions, this saving the user additional steps that would otherwise be required to generate a 3-dimensional representation of the redesign. Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srinivasan in view of Whitney, and further in view of Johnson (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0169106). Claim 18 Johnson discloses: wherein generating, by the architectural design compliance engine, the proposed re-design plan for the first real property interest comprises: applying a first weighting to a first compliancy rating associated with the proposed re-design plan to provide a first weighted compliancy rating; applying a second weighting to a second compliancy rating associated with the proposed re-design plan to provide a second weighted compliancy rating, wherein the second weighting is different from the first weighting, and wherein the first weighting and the second weighting are defined in accordance with the architectural design rule set; and deriving the second metric based on the first compliancy rating and the second compliancy rating. The optimization of the solutions found in a computerized manner for distributing a number of predetermined objects in a room/on a surface will take place not only according to one predetermined parameter, but rather according to multiple parameters simultaneously. It is probable in this case that not all parameters have the same importance, so that the weighting of the parameters will be different. Since the method which is executed by a system according to the invention is an iterative method, new solutions come into play again and again and it is therefore possible to change the weighting of the parameters or the parameters as such during the method. Examples of parameters, for example, in the room planning of an office, are: specifications relating to desks per unit of area, cabinet area per employee, fire extinguishers every 5 m, avoiding groups made up of more than 9 desks, distance of the chair to the window, pictures on the wall, feng shui rules, etc. . . . The more accurately and completely these data, representing the parameters, of the second type are provided to the system by manual or automated input, the greater the effect of the automated optimization steps on the solutions found. Johnson at [0053-[0054]. Johnson is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to providing solutions to property arrangements based on adherence to a set of rules. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary sill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the weighting techniques of Johnson with the redesign generation of the other references to result in a system that generates a redesign based on the weights associated with the ratings. Motivation to combine includes increasing the versatility of the system by allowing different compliancy ratings to be treated differently based on importance. For example, a user may indicate that compliance with one rule is more important than compliance with another rule, and the system can account for that importance. Other Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. High, et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0161404) Hoyer, et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0192111) Reynolds, et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/020926) Murphy, et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0327264) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. 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 examinerâs supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. JOSEPH MORRIS Examiner Art Unit 2188 /JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188 /RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188