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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/27/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed8/27/2025. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1 is presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/27/2025, with respect to claims 1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Applicants' Claim 1 recites multiple precise structures and functions for accomplishing a desired task, in accordance with the holding of the Federal Circuit Decision in SAP, inter alia, a specific rule-based algorithm for analysis, executed on a multi-core processor and a specific encoding scheme for version control and efficiency. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully assert that Claim 1 recites patent eligible subject matter in compliance with the Federal Circuit Court's holding and the Office Action's rejection under 35 USC §101 must be withdrawn”, (see remarks , pg. 6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner understands the Applicant feels the response is cut and paste and “office action is replete with references to the “claims” and uses incorrect subject-verb agreement”, but the Examiner specified, the claims recite method for creating and modifying building and design estimates from the preamble of the claim as it specifically states “non-transitory computer-readable medium for creating and modifying building and design estimates comprising, estimates comprising”, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as two individuals along with a database can interact with one another to determine estimates for building and design estimates using prices of items and its quantity. The computing elements such as “application programming interface, database, computational model, visual indicator, multi-core processor, computer-readable medium, module of claim 1” are computing elements derived from the independent claim, and they 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. 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 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 “creating and modifying building and design estimates comprising, estimates comprising: 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 rule-based data fusion algorithm configured to resolve conflicts between subjective subitem and model subitem quantities; organizing said data into a hierarchical data structure optimized for efficient access; and storing said data in an indexed ; a data analytic , wherein said data analytic model 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; 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 into the master estimate and associating such with a third ;wherein said scrutiny levels are implemented via an algorithm executed on a to reduce latency in estimate validation; and 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 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 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.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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 3628