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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed3/10/2026. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-3 are new. Claims 1-3 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/10/2026, with respect to claims 1-3 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Applicants respectfully assert that, as amended, Claim 1 is patent eligible. Properly characterized under Step 2A, the claim is directed to specific improvements in computer functionality-deterministic data fusion conflict resolution, hierarchical/composite indexing for access efficiency, parallel multi core validation to reduce latency, and delta encoded versioning that minimizes storage-rather than to organizing human activity… Applicants respectfully assert that, as amended, Claim 1 is patent eligible. Properly characterized under Step 2A, the claim is directed to specific improvements in computer functionality-deterministic data fusion conflict resolution, hierarchical/composite indexing for access efficiency, parallel multi core validation to reduce latency, and delta encoded versioning that minimizes storage-rather than to organizing human activity… present application, Claim 1 is directed to improvements in the way computers integrate, validate, access, and version heterogeneous estimate data: (i) a deterministic conflict resolving rule based fusion algorithm (not a business rule-but a machine executable resolution policy embodied in code and thresholds); (ii) a multi level hierarchical data structure with composite keys laid out for efficient indexed access; (iii) multi core partitioned validation to reduce latency; and (iv) delta encoded versioning that stores only node level changes and the contemporaneous indicator state to enable rollback with minimal overhead. Claims with this sort of particular data structure and processing architecture are eligible under Enfish (self referential table improved how the computer stores and retrieves data), Data Engine (specific spreadsheet interface improvements), Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (2010) (behavior based profiles as a specific, non generic improvement), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F. 3d 1299 (2016) (rule based automation with specific constraints), and Cardionet, LLC v. Infobionic, Inc, 955 F.3d 1358 (2020) (algorithmic improvement to device functionality). Under the 2019 PEG, because the claim features improve computer functionality and data processing itself, the claims are not "directed to" a judicial exception. See MPEP §2106 and the PEG's Step 2A (Prong 1) framing… Particular machine and data structures: the claim uses concrete structures-hierarchical nodes with parent/child references and locality preserving composite keys-and a specific deterministic rule based conflict resolver that applies stored priority and threshold parameters; these are not mere "apply it" instructions or field of use limitations. See MPEP §2106.05 and the PEG (distinguishing mere field of use and extra solution activity from integrated practical applications)… Office Action suggests that "two individuals along with a database can interact...to determine estimates," so the claim is organizing human activity. But the claim automates data integration, conflict resolution, validation, and versioning in a manner necessarily rooted in computer technology-addressing latency, access paths, and storage overhead-akin to the internet rooted solution in DDR and the software structural improvements in Enfish/Data Engine. The mere presence of application domain data (quantities, costs) does not convert a computer improvement claim into a business method. The PEG instructs examiners to avoid sweeping claims into "organizing human activity" when they, in context, claim a particular technological improvement”, (see remarks , pg. 7-10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for creating and modifying building and design estimates, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as well as Mathematical concepts in form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formals or equations and mathematical calculations and Mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind which include observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, as the utilization of the data in the claims can be used to perform mathematical calculations to conclude with an estimate of costs for modifying building and desigs. The computing elements such as “application programming interface, database, computational model, visual indicator, multi-core processor, computer-readable medium, module, processors, computing system, memory of claim 1” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, with respect to technological improvement "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. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/27/2025, with respect to claims 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for creating and modifying estimates.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claim 1 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “instantiating in a data integration , wherein said data integration performs the steps comprising: receiving model subitem quantity, subjective subitem quantity, unit cost, and master estimate data from a structured data source via an ; merging said data using a deterministic rule-based data fusion algorithm configured to resolve conflicts between subjective subitem and model subitem quantities, using a stored source-priority order and variance thresholds to resolve conflicts between subjective subitem and model subitem quantities based on said source-priority order and variance thresholds; organizing said data into a multi-level hierarchical data structure comprising nodes with parent-child references and locality-preserving composite keys optimized for efficient access; and storing said data in an indexed using said composite keys corresponding to said hierarchy; instantiating in a data analytic , wherein said data analytic performs the steps comprising: receiving said data; determining subitem quantity; determining subitem cost; determining the change in subitem cost; determining subitem cost ratio; determining subjective ratio; determining change in subjective subitem quantity; determining subjective subitem ratio; determining change in subitem quantity; determining subitem quantity ratio; wherein said steps of determining are performed using a trained on historical data to improve estimate accuracy; instantiating in an estimating , wherein said estimating performs the steps comprising: receiving said subitem cost ratio, said subjective ratio, said subjective subitem ratio, and said subitem quantity ratio; if each said ratio is less than or equal to one, then accepting said data into master estimate; if each said ratio is not less than or equal to one, determining if each ratio is less than or equal to a predetermined value; if each ratio is less than or equal to a predetermined value, applying a predetermined first level of scrutiny and determining if the ratio is satisfactory and associating said ratio with a first ; if each ratio is not less than or equal to a predetermined value, applying a predetermined second level of scrutiny and determining if the ratio is satisfactory and associating said ratio with a second ; if said ratios are deemed satisfactory, accepting said data into the master estimate with any associated first or second ; if said ratios are not deemed satisfactory, rejecting said data from the master estimate and associating such with a third ; wherein said scrutiny levels are implemented via an algorithm executed on said by partitioning said subitems into disjoint work sets and evaluating said ratios concurrently across cores to reduce latency in estimate validation; and instantiating in a version management , wherein said version management receives model subitem quantity, subjective subitem quantity, and subitem quantity data and accepts said data into said master estimate, wherein said model subitem quantity, subjective subitem quantity, and subitem quantity data are associated with said first , said second or said third , if associated therewith; wherein said version management maintains a version history encoding scheme that delta-encodes changes at the node level of said hierarchical data structure and persists the contemporaneous state to minimize storage overhead and enable rollback functionality” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (application programming interface, database, computational model, visual indicator, multi-core processor, computer-readable medium, module, processors, computing system, memory of claim 1) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (application programming interface, database, computational model, visual indicator, multi-core processor, computer-readable medium, module of claim 1). The application programming interface, database, computational model, visual indicator, multi-core processor, computer-readable medium, module of claim 1, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the computer-readable medium, processors, computing system of claims 2-3, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new 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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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 5712725587. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights