1. The Field of the Invention
This invention relates to systems, methods, and computer program products for modeling and design.
2. Background and Relevant Art
As computerized systems have increased in popularity, so has the range of applications that incorporate computational technology. Computational technology now extends across a broad range of applications, including a wide range of productivity and entertainment software. Indeed, computational technology and related software can now be found in a wide range of generic applications that are suited for many environments, as well as fairly industry-specific software.
One such industry that has employed specific types of software and other computational technology increasingly over the past few years is that related to building and/or architectural design. In particular, architects and interior designers (or “designers”) use a wide range of design software for designing the aesthetic as well as functional aspects of a given residential or commercial space. In some cases, the designer might use some software programs that might be better suited for exterior design, and then use other software programs that might be better suited for interior design. For example, a designer might implement one software program to design an overall look of a building, and then use the software to design or position each of the functional components of the building, such as weight-bearing walls, trusses in a roof, positioning of electrical outlets, and so on. The designer might then use another software program, whether separately, or as an add-on to the first software program, to design functional walls for offices, design where to place work stations, design the position of desks, chairs, lamps, and so forth.
When designing the exterior and/or interior of a given residential or commercial space, the designer will ordinarily need to take care that each of the elements in the design are structurally sound when built. This is because typical design software allows spaces to be fairly configurable to suit the user's tastes without specific regard in many cases to whether the design will actually work. For example, one typical software design program might allow an architect to design a roof or ceiling that is ill-suited for the number or type of weight-bearing walls the architect has presently drawn. If the roof were actually constructed as designed by the architect, the roof or ceiling might collapse. In a situation such as this, however, the builder might indicate to the architect that the design is physically impossible or impractical, and ask for a redesign. This, of course, can lead to any number of inefficiencies.
Part of the problem with many design software programs that can lead to designing physically impractical structures is the notion that many such design problems require some drawing of a space in flat, two-dimensional space. For example, the outside of a building is designed in a view that emphasizes primarily only height and width, while a top (“plan”) view of a building is designed in a view that emphasizes primarily only length and width. With views such as these, the designer will either need to independently visualize the three-dimensional spacing, or will need to perform a separate three-dimensional rendering of the design, if the software allows for it.
In addition, neither the three-dimensional rendering nor the two-dimensional drawing views are designed to accommodate necessary modifications to the objects or walls, based on real-world materials, or other important constraints. For example, a designer might place several L-shaped desks in a work space that are to be arranged back to back against a cubicle wall. In an ordinary environment, positioning the L-shaped desks together might involve a next step of removing a leg where one leg might be shared, or removing a bracket from one of the L-shaped desks for similar reasons. Accordingly, both the two-dimensional views and three-dimensional renderings of conventional design software captures only what is input, and may still need the designer to later add or remove parts in a specific drawing to reflect real-world usage.
Once a design has been finalized by a designer, the designer will need to generate one or more parts lists that are reflective of the various dimensions and parts placed in any of the design views. The parts list will be used for any number of cost estimate or ordering ends. Unfortunately, there is generally not a convenient way for an accurate parts list to be generated automatically from one or more design views. For example, even though a designer might use a conventional design software program to design one or more views of a space, the designer might need to independently deduce a parts list based on each of the different views. In some cases, the designer might hire another person to identify each part, including wood or sheetrock for each wall, as well as the number of brackets or screws needed for each door hinge, desk mount, and the like.
Although there are some software programs that can produce parts lists from a generated view, the parts lists are not always accurate, and do not adequately resolve potential conflicts in designs. For example, in the case where two L-shaped desks will be adjoined in a work space, a conventional parts list that interfaces with the design software will not ordinarily be able to deduce the correct, specific amount of parts needed, such as in the case of shared components. Furthermore, the parts lists that are generated are difficult to read, and usually comprise some detailed information in text, or in a stock keeping unit (“SKU”), and do not readily inform the reader exactly what the image looks like. Thus, conventional, automatically generated parts lists must often be edited in painstaking fashion before they can be submitted to an order fulfillment company.
Accordingly, an advantage in the art can be realized with systems, methods, and computer program products that provide a designer with the ability to design spaces in a highly configurable, and user-friendly manner. In particular, an advantage can be realized with expert systems that are configured to specifically capture a designer's intent in a manner that can emphasize physically possible or practical configurations in at least one aspect.
The present invention solves one or more of the foregoing problems in the prior art with systems, methods, and computer program products configured to automatically represent a user's design choices in an accurate way, and in a way that facilitates efficient building of the design. In particular, implementations of the present invention relate to automatically resolving present and prior user input in concert, and in consideration of real-world values.
For example, one method in accordance with an implementation of the present invention for representing user input through a user interface of a design software program involves receiving an initial user input. For example, the program receives an initial user input to be displayed through a user interface, where the initial user input comprises one or more initial attributes. In general, an attribute will relate to one or more real-world properties, or some other aspect of a design object (e.g., wood, or glass for a design object based on a table). The method also involves receiving a subsequent user input, where the subsequent user input includes one or more subsequent attributes that conflict with the one or more initial attributes. For example, the subsequent user input might regard the inadvertent placement of a chair under a wall. As such, one or more of the initial user input and the subsequent user input are automatically displayed by the user interface of the design software in a modified form, or, alternatively, are automatically hidden from view.
In addition, the method in accordance with the present invention involves receiving a different user input that changes at least one of the one or more initial or subsequent attributes. For example, the user modifies the previously entered initial or subsequent user inputs, and/or a corresponding attribute of the relevant input. In some cases, the additional user modification will result in no effective change to the view through the user interface, such as when the user modification still results in one or more attribute conflicts. Alternatively, if the user modification changes a prior conflict in the initial or subsequent attributes, the design software might then automatically display the initial and subsequent user input as originally received.
Furthermore, a method of generating an accurate parts list in accordance with the present invention involves receiving an initial user input relating to the positioning of an initial material in a design space, the initial material having one or more initial static attributes. The method also involves receiving a subsequent user input relating to the positioning of a subsequent material in the design space, the subsequent material also having one or more subsequent static attributes. The design software then determines one or more possible dynamic attributes of the initial material and the subsequent material based on the any of the initial and subsequent static attributes and on the positioning of the initial and subsequent material. The design software can then display a parts list interface that reflects the one or more static attributes and the determined one or more possible dynamic attributes of the initial and subsequent material.
As such, the design software continually resolves user input automatically, so that the user interface (as well as a parts list) accurately represents user inputs of design choices in real-time, and in accordance with real-world considerations.
Additional features and advantages of exemplary implementations of the invention will be set forth in the description which follows, and in part will be obvious from the description, or may be learned by the practice of such exemplary implementations. The features and advantages of such implementations may be realized and obtained by means of the instruments and combinations particularly pointed out in the appended claims. These and other features will become more fully apparent from the following description and appended claims, or may be learned by the practice of such exemplary implementations as set forth hereinafter.
In order to describe the manner in which the above-recited and other advantages and features of the invention can be obtained, a more particular description of the invention briefly described above will be rendered by reference to specific embodiments thereof which are illustrated in the appended drawings. Understanding that these drawings depict only typical embodiments of the invention and are not therefore to be considered to be limiting of its scope, the invention will be described and explained with additional specificity and detail through the use of the accompanying drawings in which:
The present invention extends to systems, methods, and computer program products configured to automatically represent a user's design choices in an accurate way, and in a way that facilitates efficient building of the design. In particular, implementations of the present invention relate to automatically resolving present and prior user input in concert, and in consideration of real-world values.
As will be understood from the present description and claims, one aspect of the invention relates to associating user input with a software object that includes static and dynamic attributes. Another aspect of the invention involves automatically adjusting dynamic attributes in accordance with prior, present, and/or additional user input. Still another aspect of the invention relates to ensuring that user selections accord with real-world values in real-time, such that user input is continually resolved with prior, present, and/or additional user input for an accurate depiction of parts and related positioning in a design space. Still a further aspect of the invention is the continual generation of an accurate parts list along with the user input, which can be displayed in a parts list interface, and does not need further review for correction or additional parts before ordering.
For example,
Of course, the options provided to the user are not limited to the image shown, necessarily. For example, the design software can provide the user with other options (not shown) as part of the design program for modifying the type of wall 110. In particular, the user may be presented with choices to change the wall from tinted glass to a generic cubicle divider wall, a brick wall, a wooden wall, a steel wall, and so forth, which has still additional choices for coloring, texture, thickness, and so forth. This type of flexibility can also be applied to the images and icons shown for the exemplary table icon 140, chair icon 170, and any other icons, items, or the like.
In any event,
By contrast, the dynamic attributes of object 115 represent possible variants on the static attribute, and are generated on the fly as the user provides input (i.e., draws a line) in the design space 120. The user can, however, change the static attributes, such as by selecting the wall line 110a, and changing the type of wall that is being used. This can further result in some modification to a dynamic attribute, as will be understood more fully hereinafter.
In general, when the user provides input to the design space 120, the software program resolves the dimensions of the input for real-world values. For example, if the materials of wall 110 (e.g., “gray” “glass”) were produced in 4 or 2-foot wide panels, and the user drew an 11-foot wide wall, the design software can automatically adjust the wall 110a width to either 10 or 12 feet as appropriate. The design software might alternately adjust the wall 110a to have six 2-foot panels (12 foot wall), five 2-foot panels (10 foot wall), two 4-foot panels and one or two 2-foot panels (10 or 12 foot wall), and so on. On the other hand, if the user selects another material (e.g., “red” “brick”) that is alternatively produced in any of 2 and 3-foot panels, the design software can then readjust to the user's original input to create an 11-foot wide wall 110a. Thus, each of the instantiated objects for an element placed in a design space 120 can be configured to conform to the user's original selection, and thus represent that intent when possible.
As will be understood in greater detail hereinafter, user input also results in the software program resolving the user input to create an accurate parts list interface (e.g.,
For example, when the user draws wall 110b against wall 110a, the design software can automatically adjust all of the necessary parts for joining walls 110a and 110b, and provide this information in the dynamic parts list. This information can include any necessary floor, ceiling or wall brackets, screws, nails, compounds, or the like, necessary to hold the walls 110a and 110b in place, individually and together, in addition to the other information related to material type. The design software also ensures that a specific type of mounting hardware is used if a specific one is required for the given material. For example, the design software might change the number and type of hardware or compounds used for a wall joint if the user later changes the material of walls 110a and 110b from “gray” “glass” to, for example, “brown” “wood” walls, and so on.
In any event,
For example,
In addition,
As such,
These modifications and updates to the object and images shown in the design space 120, however, are not necessarily static, and can be changed on still additional user input. For example,
The parts list 200a also includes a table portion 210a, which can also include the specific parts, the numbers of parts, any appropriate hardware for creating tables 140a and 140b, and all appropriate SKUs. For example, parts list 200a shows that the tables 140a and 140b will be built using 8 independent legs, 2 shared legs, and 2 shared mounting brackets, consistent with
By contrast,
For example, supposing the user changed the wall material in the wall portion 205b of parts list 200b so that wall 110a could be made using 2 and 3-foot panels. The design software could then resolve the walls based on the user's original intent of drawing an 11-foot wall 110a, and therefore change the parts list to use three 3-foot panels, and one 2-foot panel. This of course would change the SKUs in the parts list 200b, as well as the depiction of the walls in a corresponding two or three-dimensional view. Similarly, the user could change the table 140 icon in the table portion 210a of the parts list 200a, so that tables 140a and 140b are both round tables.
In such a case, the design software might resolve the attributes so that there are now no shared legs or shared mounting brackets, which would result in a deletion of the shared legs and shared brackets from the price list. If the user were then to click into a two or three-dimensional view, the design space 120 might show a new configuration of the tables in a non-joined fashion. Thus, changes in the parts lists and given design space views are automatically coordinated, resolved and reflected in each other.
The preceding schematic diagrams, therefore, illustrate in part how design software in accordance with the present invention can be configured to automatically and accurately monitor static and dynamic attributes or user input. Furthermore, the preceding diagrams illustrate how the design software can automatically revise a design for real-world values, including continually updating both a user interface and an accurate parts list based on real-world situations.
Additional and alternative descriptions relating to the creation of specific data nodes that can be used in the continual update and/or automatic resolution processes used by the design software are found in commonly-assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/204,420 now U.S.Pat No. 7,277,830 filed on Aug. 16, 2005 — the same day as the present application, and entitled “Capturing a User's Design Intent with Resolvable Objects”. Additional and alternative descriptions for displaying automatically resolved user input in two or more dimensional views as described herein in a realistic manner are found in commonly-assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/204,419 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,249,005, filed on Aug. 16, 2005— the same day as the present application, and entitled “Design Software Incorporating Efficient 3-D Rendering”. The entire contents of the aforementioned patent applications are incorporated by reference herein.
The present invention can also be described in terms of functional steps and non-functional acts for accomplishing a method. In particular,
For example,
As previously described in
In addition, the method of
Accordingly,
Accordingly, the diagrams and methods provided herein illustrate a number of ways and configurations in which design software can be used to automatically adjust prior, present, and/or future user inputs to create an accurate depiction of a design space. In particular, the design software in accordance with the present invention is configured to continually resolve conflicts in user input, as well as to continually resolve appropriate positioning of input in real-time. Furthermore, the design software in accordance with the present invention accomplishes these ends while maintaining an accurate parts list for each of the items placed in a given design space. Thus, implementations of the present invention represent an effective and efficient means for designing any interior and/or exterior space, and ultimately for constructing the same.
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the invention may be practiced in network computing environments with many types of computer system configurations, including personal computers, hand-held devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. The invention may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where local and remote processing devices perform tasks and are linked (either by hardwired links, wireless links, or by a combination of hardwired or wireless links) through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.
With reference to
The computer 420 may also include a magnetic hard disk drive 427 for reading from and writing to a magnetic hard disk 439, a magnetic disc drive 428 for reading from or writing to a removable magnetic disk 429, and an optical disc drive 430 for reading from or writing to removable optical disc 431 such as a CD ROM or other optical media. The magnetic hard disk drive 427, magnetic disk drive 428, and optical disc drive 430 are connected to the system bus 423 by a hard disk drive interface 432, a magnetic disk drive-interface 433, and an optical drive interface 434, respectively. The drives and their associated computer-readable media provide nonvolatile storage of computer-executable instructions, data structures, program modules and other data for the computer 420. Although the exemplary environment described herein employs a magnetic hard disk 439, a removable magnetic disk 429 and a removable optical disc 431, other types of computer readable media for storing data can be used, including magnetic cassettes, flash memory cards, digital versatile disks, Bernoulli cartridges, RAMs, ROMs, and the like.
Program code means comprising one or more program modules may be stored on the hard disk 439, magnetic disk 429, optical disc 431, ROM 424 or RAM 425, including an operating system 435, one or more application programs 436, other program modules 437, and program data 438. A user may enter commands and information into the computer 420 through keyboard 440, pointing device 442, or other input devices (not shown), such as a microphone, joy stick, game pad, satellite dish, scanner, or the like. These and other input devices are often connected to the processing unit 421 through a serial port interface 446 coupled to system bus 423. Alternatively, the input devices may be connected by other interfaces, such as a parallel port, a game port or a universal serial bus (USB). A monitor 447 or another display device is also connected to system bus 423 via an interface, such as video adapter 448. In addition to the monitor, personal computers typically include other peripheral output devices (not shown), such as speakers and printers.
The computer 420 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers, such as remote computers 449a and 449b. Remote computers 449a and 449b may each be another personal computer, a server, a router, a network PC, a peer device or other common network node, and typically include many or all of the elements described above relative to the computer 420, although only memory storage devices 450a and 450b and their associated application programs 436a and 436b have been illustrated in
When used in a LAN networking environment, the computer 420 is connected to the local network 451 through a network interface or adapter 453. When used in a WAN networking environment, the computer 420 may include a modem 454, a wireless link, or other means for establishing communications over the wide area network 452, such as the Internet. The modem 454, which may be internal or external, is connected to the system bus 423 via the serial port interface 446. In a networked environment, program modules depicted relative to the computer 420, or portions thereof, may be stored in the remote memory storage device. It will be appreciated that the network connections shown are exemplary and other means of establishing communications over wide area network 452 may be used.
The present invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from its spirit or essential characteristics. The described embodiments are to be considered in all respects only as illustrative and not restrictive. The scope of the invention is, therefore, indicated by the appended claims rather than by the foregoing description. All changes that come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are to be embraced within their scope.
The present invention claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/602,233, filed on Aug. 17, 2004, entitled “Method and Apparatus for the Selection, Organization and Configuration of Products through Object Oriented Design Intent”, the entire contents of which are incorporated by reference herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5111392 | Malin | May 1992 | A |
5255207 | Cornwell | Oct 1993 | A |
5293479 | Quintero et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5514232 | Burns | May 1996 | A |
5555357 | Fernandes et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5572639 | Gantt | Nov 1996 | A |
5576965 | Akasaka et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5588098 | Chen et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5625827 | Krause et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5684713 | Asada et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5740341 | Oota et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5764518 | Collins | Jun 1998 | A |
5870771 | Oberg | Feb 1999 | A |
5894310 | Arsenault et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5977982 | Lauzon | Nov 1999 | A |
5995107 | Berteig | Nov 1999 | A |
6014503 | Nagata et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6020885 | Honda | Feb 2000 | A |
6037945 | Loveland | Mar 2000 | A |
6253167 | Matsuda | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6292810 | Richards | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6401237 | Ishikawa | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6459435 | Eichel | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466239 | Ishikawa | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6493679 | Rappaport et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6509906 | Awe et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6662144 | Normann et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6690981 | Kawachi et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6701288 | Normann | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6721684 | Saebi | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6772168 | Ardoin et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6888542 | Clauss | May 2005 | B1 |
6922701 | Ananian et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6971063 | Rappaport et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6985832 | Saebi | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6999102 | Felser et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7019753 | Rappaport et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7042440 | Pryor et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7062454 | Giannini et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7062722 | Carlin et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7080096 | Imamura | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7085697 | Rappaport et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7096173 | Rappaport et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7155228 | Rappaport et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7171208 | Rappaport et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7200639 | Yoshida | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7216092 | Weber et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7243054 | Rappaport et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7246044 | Imamura et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7246045 | Rappaport et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7249005 | Loberg | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7266768 | Ferlitsch et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7277572 | MacInnes et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7277830 | Loberg | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7299168 | Rappaport et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7299416 | Jaeger | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7328171 | Helot et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7340383 | Mayuzumi | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7353192 | Ellis | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7587302 | Arvin | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7596518 | Rappaport et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7643966 | Adachi | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7661959 | Green et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7676348 | Okada | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7680644 | Rappaport et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7788068 | Mangon | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7814436 | Schrag | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7822584 | Saebi | Oct 2010 | B1 |
7823074 | Takemura | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7856342 | Kfouri | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7877237 | Saebi | Jan 2011 | B1 |
7996756 | Eilers | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8108267 | Varon | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8132123 | Schrag | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8134553 | Saini | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8185219 | Gilbert | May 2012 | B2 |
8244025 | Davis | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8314799 | Pelletier | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8352218 | Balla | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8462147 | Sugden | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8499250 | Wetzer | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8508539 | Vlietinck | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8510672 | Loberg | Aug 2013 | B2 |
20010024211 | Kudukoli et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010047250 | Schuller et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010047251 | Kemp | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020010589 | Nashida | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020069221 | Rao | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083076 | Wucherer | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020085041 | Ishikawa | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020091739 | Ferlitsch et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020093538 | Carlin | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020144204 | Milner | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020188678 | Edecker | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020196285 | Sojoodi et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20040012542 | Bowsher et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040027371 | Jaeger | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040098691 | Teig | May 2004 | A1 |
20040117746 | Narain et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040145614 | Takagaki et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040153824 | Devarajan | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040204903 | Saebi | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205519 | Chapel | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050041028 | Coutts | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050065951 | Liston et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071135 | Vredenburgh | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050081161 | MacInnes et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20060028695 | Knighton | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041842 | Loberg | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060174209 | Barros | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060206623 | Gipps | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060271378 | Day | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070088704 | Bourne | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070115275 | Cook et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070168325 | Bourne | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070180425 | Storms | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070188488 | Choi | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070204241 | Glennie et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070219645 | Thomas | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070240049 | Rogerson | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070250295 | Murray | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070260432 | Okada | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070271870 | Mifsud | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070294622 | Sterner | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080036769 | Coutts | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080052618 | McMillan | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080143884 | Foster | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080275674 | Reghetti et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080282166 | Fillman | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080303844 | Reghetti et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080309678 | Reghetti et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090113349 | Zohar | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090119039 | Banister | May 2009 | A1 |
20090138826 | Barros | May 2009 | A1 |
20090148050 | Reghetti et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090210487 | Westerhoff et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090248184 | Steingart | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090273598 | Reghetti et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100017733 | Barros | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100121614 | Reghetti et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100122196 | Wetzer | May 2010 | A1 |
20100138762 | Reghetti et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100185514 | Glazer | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20110078169 | Sit | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110169826 | Elsberg | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110258573 | Wetzer | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110320966 | Edecker | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120005353 | Edecker | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120331422 | High | Dec 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1098244 | Sep 2001 | EP |
1098244 | Sep 2001 | EP |
EP1204046 | May 2002 | JP |
WO9003618 | Apr 1990 | WO |
WO9322741 | Nov 1993 | WO |
WO02075597 | Sep 2002 | WO |
WO2005033985 | Apr 2005 | WO |
2006018740 | Feb 2006 | WO |
WO2006018744 | Feb 2006 | WO |
WO2007093060 | Aug 2007 | WO |
2007106873 | Sep 2007 | WO |
Entry |
---|
bing search q=design+resolve+conflict+suggest&qs Mar. 10, 2014. |
bing search q=design+space+resolve+conflict+sugg Mar. 10, 2014. |
bing search q=design+space+resolve+conflict+suggest update Mar. 10, 2014. |
Marir F et al: “OSCONCAD: a model-based CAD system integrated with computer applications”, Proceedings of the International Construction IT Conference, vol. 3, 1998. |
EPO Search Report for EP07701791 dated Aug. 21, 2012. |
Gross M D: “Why can't CAD be more like Lego? CKB, a program for building constructions kits”, Automation in Construction, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, NL, vol. 5, No. 4, Oct. 1, 1996 pp. 285-300, XP004072247, ISSN: 0926-5805, D0I:10.1016/S0926-5805(96)00154-9. |
European Search Report—Application No./Patent No. 09719352.8-1960/2252951 PCT/CA2009000311. |
Josie Wernecke; Title: The Inventor Mentor: Programming Object Oriented 3D Graphics with Open Inventor; Release 2; Date: Jun. 19, 1997; Published on Web Site: www.cs.ualberta.cal-. |
Office Action Mailed Nov. 28, 2007, U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,421. |
Office Action Mailed Aug. 11, 2008, U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,421. |
Office Action Mailed Dec. 23, 2008, U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,421. |
Office Action Mailed Mar. 31, 2009, U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,421. |
Office Action Mailed May 15, 2009, U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,421. |
Office Action Mailed Jul. 29, 2009, U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,421. |
International Search Report and Opinion on PCT/CA2007/000241, mailed May 15, 2007. |
International Search Report and Opinion on PCT/CA2009/000190, mailed Jun. 5, 2009. |
International Search Report and Opinion on PCT/CA2009/000183, mailed Jun. 9, 2009. |
International Search Report and Opinion on PCT/CA2009/000311, mailed Jul. 30, 2009. |
Office Action Mailed Aug. 18, 2010, U.S. Appl. No. 11/577,302. |
USPTO, Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/444,886, mailed Oct. 27, 2011, 24 pages. |
Advisory Action Mailed Mar. 31, 2009, U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,421. |
Advisory Action Mailed May 15, 2009, U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,421. |
USPTO, Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/444,890, mailed Oct. 27, 2011, 30 pages. |
International Search Report & Written Opinion for PCT/US2010/058092 dated Jul. 27, 2011. |
USPTO, Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/444,893, mailed Feb. 19, 2013. |
USPTO, Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/444,886, mailed Aug. 16, 2012. |
Blythe, Rise of the Graphics Processor, IEEE, 2008. |
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Clear Cache, IE, 2007. |
Wang, Intellectual Property Protection in Collaborative Design through Lean information Modeling and Sharing , 2006. |
Lea, Community Place Architecture and Performance, 2007. |
Autodesk, Maya 8.5 Shading, 2007. |
CRC, Final Report Collaboration Platform. 2009. |
Mental Images GmbH, RealityServer Functional Overview White Paper, 2007. |
Rozansk, Software Systems Architecture Working With Stakeholders Using Viewpoints and Perspectives, 2008. |
Sony, Community Place Conductor 2.0 Users Manual, 1998. |
Vasko, Collaborative Modeling of Web Applications for Various Stakeholders, 2009. |
International Search Report for PCT/CA2009000190 mailed Apr. 12, 2012. |
Chan, et al.: “Design of a Walkthrough System for Indoor Environments from Floor Plans”; Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE Conference on Information Visualization, Jul. 29-31, 1998, pp. 50-57. |
Office Action mailed Oct. 18, 2006 (Paper No. 20060925), U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,419, filed Aug. 16, 2005. |
Office Action mailed Oct. 19, 2006 (Paper No. 20061012), U.S. Appl. No. 11/204,420, filed Aug. 16, 2005. |
Edward J. DeJesus, James P. Callan, and Curtis R. Whitehead, Pearl: An Expert System for Power Supply Layout, 23rd Design Automation Conference, Paper 34.4, IEEE. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20060041842 A1 | Feb 2006 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60602233 | Aug 2004 | US |