DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 09/01/2026.
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 . 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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/01/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 were previously pending and subject to a final Office Action mailed 03/02/2026. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and are subject to the non-final Office Action below.
Priority
Examiner has noted that the Applicant has claimed priority from the provisional application 62/794799 filed on 01/21/2019 and the PCT/CA2020/050065 filed on 01/21/2020.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 09/01/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-5 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5-6 that the claimed invention addresses a specific technical and physical limitation and provides a “technical solution”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation is the lack of data which a service provider needs to compute materials costs and in order to resolve the data deficiency, the number of vents is estimated using square feet of an area of the roof and comparison of the roof with other roofs of similar size. Such a process is part of the abstract idea of commercial interactions and/or business relations.
Applicant argues on page 6 that the server executes a specific sequence of operations which integrates the exception into a practical application, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The loop sequence which Applicant notes (steps 1 to 3) are part of the abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.04(d) provide examples of limitations which did not integrate the exception into a practical application such as merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Similar to the example, the server is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components.
Applicant argues on page 7-8 that the combination of elements is novel and thus the combination cannot be dismissed as conventional generic activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.05 provides limitations which the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as significantly more such as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception.
The additional elements in Applicant’s claims were not summarily dismissed as conventional generic activity, Examiner analyzed each additional elements individual and as a combination and determined the following:
The server hosting a host application; database connected to the server, the database comprising price information; one or more devices in wireless communication with the server and configured to access the host application, wherein each of the devices comprises a user interface, and satellite image provider are recited at a high-level of generality such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components.
The database connected to the server, the database comprising price information is used to store price information and store data regarding roofs of similar size which is essentially, the well-understood, conventional, and generic computer function of storing and retrieving information in memory as in Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The host application is utilized to transmit the address to the server, transmit satellite images to the user interface, accept user confirmation, access the database, communicate the estimate, and transmit the bill of materials which may be considered as extra solution activity of retrieving information in memory or receiving/transmitting data over a network. Such activities are recognized by the court as computer functions which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The one or more devices in wireless communication with the server and configured to access the host application, wherein each of the devices comprises a user interface, and satellite image provider perform pre-solution activity of data gathering and perform post-solution activity of data outputting. Thus, the one or more devices in wireless communication with the server and configured to access the host application, wherein each of the devices comprises a user interface, and satellite image provider are performing the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims perform physical spatial modelling of a real world building and recites a technical, engineering solution, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, it is difficult to say that Applicant’s claims perform “physical spatial modelling” or “image processing”. The closest feature appears to be “when the number of vents is not available from the satellite image provider” which given broadest reasonable interpretation, involves the determination of lack of data provided by the satellite image provider NOT image processing (the host application does not perform analysis of the image to “determine” that it cannot determine the number of vents). This interpretation is supported by paragraph 27 of the specification where the satellite image provider provides requested data such as number of facets, area, dimensions, etc. to the host application for the host application to perform a cost estimate.
Further, “spatial modeling” at most, amounts to a calculation for the commercial interaction/business relation as in pursuit of a materials cost estimate, the business must estimate the number of vents based on the square footage of the roof as well as a comparison to other roofs.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-5 is maintained.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-5 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, the claims all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A - Prong 1:
Independent Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
…accept…input from one of the remote users regarding an address at which the roof thereof is to be replaced and to transmit the address…;
…in response to the input regarding the address, is configured to communicate … regarding the address and to accept … one or more satellite images of the roof at the address;
… in response to the one or more satellite images, is further configured to transmit … at least one of the one or more satellite images of the roof … for display to the remote user …;
… accept from the remote user… a confirmation that the at least one of the one or more satellite images correspond to the roof at the address;
… response to the confirmation, is further configured to query … for roof information regarding the roof and to accept from the remote user… additional roof input, … generating an estimate for the cost of replacing the roof, the estimate including materials cost, waste cost, and labour cost, with the materials cost being based, at least in part, on the price information and an estimated number of vents for the roof, wherein, when the number of vents for the roof is not available … determine the estimated number of vents based, at least in part, on allocating one vent for every 300 square feet of an area of the roof and on a comparison of the roof with other ones of roofs of similar size …, with the waste cost being based, at least in part, on the roof information, and with the labour cost being based at least in part, on the additional roof input;
…communicate the estimate… for display to the remote user…, to arrange an appointment between the remote user and the contractor, and to generate a contract document for the replacement of the roof; and
…generate a bill of materials of materials required for the roof, the bill of materials being based, at least in part, on an area in which the roof is located, the roof information, and the additional roof input and to transmit the bill of materials… for display to the remote user...
The limitations stated above (i.e., “facilitating a replacement of a roof between one or more remote users and a contractor”) are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people or commercial or legal interactions). See Para. [001] of Applicant’s specification stating “[t]he invention relates to a system for generating an estimate for roofing work for a residential building”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of Claim 1 are a server hosting a host application; a database connected to the server, the database comprising price information; one or more devices in wireless communication with the server and configured to access the host application, wherein each of the devices comprises a user interface, and a satellite image provider.
The server hosting a host application; database connected to the server, the database comprising price information; one or more devices in wireless communication with the server and configured to access the host application, wherein each of the devices comprises a user interface, and satellite image provider of claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components.
The database connected to the server, the database comprising price information; the host application; one or more devices in wireless communication with the server and configured to access the host application, wherein each of the devices comprises a user interface, and satellite image provider may also be considered as performing extra-solution activity.
The database is merely storing price data and data regarding roofs of similar size. The host application is utilized to transmit the address to the server, transmit satellite images to the user interface, accept user confirmation, access the database, communicate the estimate, and transmit the bill of materials which may be considered as extra solution activity of retrieving information in memory or receiving/transmitting data over a network. The one or more devices and user interface are collecting address information from the user (pre-solution activity), collecting confirmation from the user (pre-solution activity), collecting additional roof input (pre-solution activity), communicate the estimate to the user and communicate the bill of materials to the user (post-solution activity of data outputting). The satellite image provider provides the server with satellite images and roof information which is pre-solution activity of data gathering.
Thus, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recited above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The server hosting a host application; database connected to the server, the database comprising price information; one or more devices in wireless communication with the server and configured to access the host application, wherein each of the devices comprises a user interface, and satellite image provider are recited at a high-level of generality such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components.
The database connected to the server, the database comprising price information is used to store price information and store data regarding roofs of similar size which is essentially, the well-understood, conventional, and generic computer function of storing and retrieving information in memory as in Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The host application is utilized to transmit the address to the server, transmit satellite images to the user interface, accept user confirmation, access the database, communicate the estimate, and transmit the bill of materials which may be considered as extra solution activity of retrieving information in memory or receiving/transmitting data over a network. Such activities are recognized by the court as computer functions which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The one or more devices in wireless communication with the server and configured to access the host application, wherein each of the devices comprises a user interface, and satellite image provider perform pre-solution activity of data gathering and perform post-solution activity of data outputting. Thus, the one or more devices in wireless communication with the server and configured to access the host application, wherein each of the devices comprises a user interface, and satellite image provider are performing the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
None of the steps/functions of claim 1 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to organizing human activity, mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, and merely performing extra solution activity; thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination. Thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 2 merely specifies further what the roof information comprises. Claim 3 merely specifies further what the waste cost is based on. Claim 4 merely specifies further what the materials cost is based on. Claim 5 merely specifies further what the additional roof input comprises and is part of the abstract idea as the user provides a type of materials for the roof to the server (organizing commercial interactions between the user and server) and specifies further the material cost is based on the type of materials.
Claim 2-5 (evaluated individually or as an ordered combination) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-5 are ineligible.
Closest Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of closest prior art:
Examiner noting that Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Current prior art alone or in combination fail to disclose every element of Claim 1. Examiner specifically noting the following limitation as not disclosed in available prior art: “the materials cost being based, at least in part, on the price information and an estimated number of vents for the roof, wherein, when the number of vents for the roof is not available from the satellite image provider, the server is configured to determine the estimated number of vents based, at least in part, on allocating one vent for every 300 square feet of an area of the roof and on a comparison of the roof with other ones of roofs of similar size”.
The following are the closest prior art:
Ripley teaches “the materials cost being based, at least in part, on the price information”. Examiner also noting that Ripley teaches the roof estimation process may be used to estimate a bill of materials.
Thornberry teaches using actual roof dimensions to estimate the materials needed and accounting for vents in the material calculation.
Spanton, JR. et al. (US2010/0198652) teaches determining material and labor requirements for a repair project and generating a cost estimate for the repair project. Spanton, JR. also teaches the cost estimate is generated based on the number of vents.
Halliday et al. (US2017/0132835) teaches a 3D blueprint of a building’s exterior including the quantity of vents and the system determining material listings and cost estimates.
Okazaki (US2023/0281447) teaches comparing aerial images of roofs to determine location, street, roof condition, roof equipment, etc.
Fathi et al. (US2018/0053347) briefly discusses the need for accurate measurements of roof structures such as vent count and associated material costs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights