DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
Claims 8,
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending
Claims 12- are withdrawn as set forth previously.
Claims 1-7, 9-11 and 17-20 stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Initially, the Examiner maintains the finding that the claims “recite” an abstract idea. This is because they expressly set forth and describe the process for performance driven selection of building product configurations. Applicant is reminded that Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Applicant is also reminded Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
With respect to Prong Two, argument (1): Based on Applicant’s arguments, the function of automatically resolves is analogous to automatically translating the geographic region into a set of quantitative engineering values (e.g., Remarks, p. 11). Applicant alleges that this is performed “without user intervention”, which is not persuasive itself because mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality (see: MPEP 2106.05(a)(I): iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential)).
Furthermore, the translations/conversion is described in such a way that it resembles a mathematical process. Applicant is also reminded that the use of a computer in performing repetitive calculations is recognized as a well-understood, routine and conventional function of computers (see 2106.05(d)MPEP (II)(ii)).
Lastly, the specification provides no detail for how this operation is to be performed, other than the mere repetition of the claim language in 0064: “the product configuration builder 106 automatically resolves to the performance values or ranges”. There is no evidence that the operation of automatically resolving is considered anything more than part of the abstract idea, or that this limitation provides an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field. Merely claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). Neither Applicant’s specification, nor the claims, provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
With respect to Prong Two, argument (2): The claimed invention does not reduce computational load based on a technological change to the data or the computer, but merely reduces the frequency of how often the computations are performed. This does not improve the computer’s ability to perform any computation more efficiently.
As discussed previously (e.g., Non-Final mailed 3/11/2026 (p. 3); Remarks filed 1/27/2026 (p. 13-14), “pre-processing” is performing computationally intensive calculations “in advance”. This forms part of the abstract idea, and does represent a technical operation performed by a computer. Moreover, while the use of computations stored “in advance” may provide some reduction in response time, here again this stems only from the idea of pre-storing the data, rather than computing it on the fly. There is no underlying technical process that enables faster response times such that this feature moves beyond implementation by a generic computer.
As originally filed, the specification does not reveal sufficient disclosure that demonstrates that Applicant has invention an improvement as alleged. The “pre-processing” is itself an abstract computation, not a specific technological operation of the computer. The improvement is the decision to store data in advance for retrieval, it’s manner of formatting, storage within memory, and retrieval taking place in some unspecified manner only at a high-level of generality as any generic computer would be capable of doing. Lastly, storing and retrieving information in memory is a function the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional, as is performing repetitive calculations (which relates to the pre-processing or pre-computation above) (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (ii) and (iv)).
With respect to Prong Two, argument (3): the interlayer thickness is nothing more than a parameter that forms part of the abstract analysis. The claims do not require the fabrication or manufacture of any physical structure, nor does the specification envision such detail aside from a cursory mention (e.g., 0004).
With respect to Prong Two, argument (4): “machine learning limitation recites a specific non-conventional input arrangement and measurable output”, the Examiner again disagrees. Even presuming arguendo the entire limitation is to be treated as additional (which the Examiner does not acquiesce), the specification offers very little in terms of detail. This raises the question of whether Applicant even truly has adequate support under 112(a) for the claimed encoding. Granting, however, that encoding techniques are well-known and thus not in need of further detailed explanation, the lack of disclosure once again underscores that generic nature of the technology being used by the claimed invention. This was addressed in the Non-Final mailed 3/11/2026:
PNG
media_image1.png
328
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Notably, the previous 112(a) rejection was withdrawn precisely because the encoding is old and well known. Notably, in Applicant’s previous Remarks (filed 1/27/2026, p. 14), Applicant expressly referred to the encoding as “Standard ML implementation”. Meanwhile, paragraph 0030 provides the following:
In still other examples, user data may be used as training data to identify relationships in user selections and other activities within the system that can be encoded in an artificial intelligence (AI) model, such as a neural network or other machine learning algorithm. Such AI models may be used to determine user preferences and requirements, so as to make recommendations and return results that may further streamline and otherwise improve the selection process.
There is no evidence of record that suggests that Applicant has invented an improvement to the technical field of machine learning. To the contrary, all evidence points to the conclusion that Applicant’s invention leverages known machine learning techniques for their known advantages and benefits, akin to implementing the abstract idea using generic computing technology.
The only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment – e.g., performance driven selection of building product configurations. The claims purport to solves problems in this specific environment using (in part) conventional machine learning technology. As disclosed and claimed, the Examiner holds that the invention does nothing more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning technology itself.
Concerning Bascom, the Examiner observes no unconventional arrangement such as that in Bascom. Even presuming the combination of training data used is now known, this is nothing more than the selection of data to be used by generic machine learning models. Training using selected training material and adjustments based on real-time are incident to the very nature of machine learning.
Lastly with respect to machine learning as claimed, the Examiner draws Applicant’s attention to Recentive Analytics, Inc v. Fox Corp (Fed Cir, 2023-2437, 4/18/2025), which held claims to the use of machine learning for generation of network maps and schedules for television broadcasts and live events to be ineligible. The court affirmed the district court in upholding the determination the patents are directed to the abstract idea of using a generic machine learning technique in a particular environment. Similar to Recentive, the current claims seek to use machine learning concepts in a particular environment in an effort to improve the abstract idea itself. Notably, the circuit court maintained their finding despite the recitation of an “iterative” training process.
With respect to Prong Two, argument (5): “the publishing step via the graphic indicator ties claim 1 to a specific user interface element”, the Examiner disagrees. This is because there is no “specific” graphical user interface or element. Instead, generic user interface technology is used to output the selectable configuration options.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments under Step 2B, the Examiner maintains that the claims are ineligible. Here again, the Examiner find the comparison to Bascom inapposite. As discussed above, Applicant’s specification envisions no underlying technical procedure for achieving a reduction in computational or network load. This problem is “solved” by Applicant by simply pre-processing data so that it may be stored and retrieved in some unspecified manner when needed. This is not a problem akin to that of Bascom, nor is it otherwise considered a technical solution to a technological problem. Considered individually or as a whole, the Examiner maintains that the claims offer nothing that rises to “significantly more” under Step 2B, and applies similar logic as discussed with respect to Prong Two above herein.
Lastly, the Examiner acknowledges the allegation that the Examiner has failed to analyze numerous specific claim limitations. In the previous rejection and below, however, the Examiner provided a complete analysis consistent with US guidance provided in the MPEP. Any implication to the contrary is unfounded.
For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objection – Minor Informalities
Claim 1 is objected to because claim 1 recites “…by encoding the relationships in at least one of a neural network or machine learning [?], wherein the neural network or machine learning algorithm…”. Applicant’s amendment omitted the word “algorithm” at the place of the [?]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite wherein the computer system automatically resolves the geographic region to one or more applicable performance value ranges. Paragraph 0064 provides only that “the product configuration builder 106 automatically resolves to the performance values or ranges”. In view of Applicant’s remarks, the resolving claimed corresponds to an automated translation of a geographic region into a set of quantitative engineering performance value ranges applicable to that region (Remarks, p. 11). The specification provides no details with respect to such a translation, nor does the specification as originally filed provide any details with respect to how a computer resolves the geographic region to one or more applicable performance value ranges.
Claims 2-7 and 9-11 depend from claim 1 and are rejected therewith.
Regarding claims 17-20, claims 17-20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-7 and 9-11 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 17-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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 1-7, 9-11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-7, 9-11 and 17-20, under Step 2A claims 1-7, 9-11 and 17-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a method of performance-driven selection of building product configurations comprising
receiving target performance data for a building product configuration, wherein the target performance data includes a user indication of a geographic region and…the target performance value being at least one of U-factor, solar heat gain coefficient, transmittance, reflectance, or condensation resistance, and resolves the geographic region to one or more applicable performance value ranges;
automatically determining performance data for each of a plurality of building product configurations, wherein each of the plurality of building product configurations includes a glass product and a framing system, the performance data comprising center of glass U-value and frame U-value, wherein the automatically determining performance data comprises accessing pre-processed performance data for at least some of the plurality of building product configurations, the pre-processed performance data having been computed in advance for each of the at least some of the plurality of building product configurations under a defined performance measurement standard, and
identifying, from the plurality building product configurations, one or more satisfactory building product configurations, wherein the performance data of the one or more satisfactory building product configurations satisfies the target performance data and the one or more applicable performance value ranges automatically resolved from the geographic region;
deriving user-selectable configuration options based, at least in part, on the one or more satisfactory building product configurations, the user selectable configuration options including an interlayer thickness, wherein the interlayer thickness is a thickness of a physical interlayer material disposed between two glass panes of the glass product;
publishing information related to the user-selectable configuration options; and
receiving a user selection of a building product configuration from the one or more satisfactory building product configurations;
utilizing the user selection and target performance data to identify relationships in user selections, to determine user preferences specific to building product configurations and generate recommendations that improve the selection process by reducing the number of user interactions required to identify a satisfactory building product configuration.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because the claimed limitations set forth and describe a process for investigating and customizing building product configurations. This represents the performance of a marketing and/or sales activity, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, such as a computer system and a user interface. Claim 1 also recites:
the user interface comprises at least one graphic indicator corresponding to a desired target performance value, and,
utilizing the user selection and target performance data as training data to identify relationships in user selections by encoding the relationships in at least one of a neural network or machine learning, wherein the neural network or machine learning algorithm receives as joint inputs the user selection and the target performance data including the geographic region.
For the sake of argument, the Examiner will also address accessing pre- processed performance data for at least some of the plurality of building product configurations as an additional element despite no specific storage being recited by the limitation from which the data is accessed.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
With further respect to (i), and even presuming arguendo that the step of accessing pre-processed data does not form part of the abstract idea, the Examiner holds that this is not tantamount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. This is because neither the claims nor the specification discuss any underlying technical procedure (such as a particular way of “processing” the data (e.g. compressing or formatting data, or other computer-based processes for data handling) in order to enable more expedient transmission. This reflects an improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See the more detailed discussion under the heading Response to Arguments above, which is incorporated herein.
Similar logic is applied to utilizing the user selection and target performance data as training data to identify relationships in user selections by encoding the relationships in at least one of a neural network or machine learning, wherein the neural network or machine learning algorithm receives as joint inputs the user selection and the target performance data including the geographic region. That is, the Examiner holds that the invention does nothing more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning technology itself. See the more detailed discussion under the heading Response to Arguments above, which is incorporated herein.
Lastly, wherein accessing the pre-processed performance data reduces computational load on the computer system and improves response time to the user interface relative to on-demand computation s little more than an intended result achieved only by the decision to pre-process data for storage and retrieval. This too is discussed under the heading Response to Arguments above, which is incorporated herein.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
performing repetitive calculations,
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7 and 9-11, dependent claims 2-11 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-7 and 9-11 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-7 and 9-11 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. Claims 2-11 rely on at least similar additional elements as recited in claim 1, which are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-7 and 9-11 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-7 and 9-11 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 17-20, claims 17-20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-7 and 9-11 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 17-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim Interpretation
The following terms have been interpreted as follows in accordance with their plain meaning in the art:
Interlayer: a layer of material between two glass panes (e.g., PVB, EVA, SGP, etc. are known interlayer materials)
Interlayer thickness: the thickness of the interlayer material
Allowable Subject Matter
Though rejected on other grounds, claims 1-7, 9-11, and 17-20 are allowable over the prior art. The reasons for indicating allowable subject matter discussed in the Non-Final mailed 4/15/2025 (p. 14-15) are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any modifications to the ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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 examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights