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 .
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 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process of observation, judgement and evaluation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea below. See below for further explanation.
Claims 1 and 17
Step 1: The claim recites a method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, therefore, they fall into the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Using the received input to determining input parameters; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user determines input parameters from received input data.)
Determining metrics for a plurality of fabrics to associate with the window treatment; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a consider various fabrics for blinds, curtains or other window treatments and rates the properties of it as it relates to the user desires. Or the user can select a thicker fabric for insulation purposes and rating the thickness of fabric. This can be accomplished mentally by a user with aid of pen and paper.)
Ranking the plurality of fabrics by predicted performance based on input parameters and the metrics, the predicted performance comprising one or more metrics that relate to the natural light impinging on the fabric; (This amount to a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user predicts how the different fabrics will perform based the location of the window, the glass characteristics, desire amount of natural light and fabric characteristics, and ranks the fabrics. For example, based on a window facing the east and it being clear glass, it will get a lot of sunlight in the morning. Thus, to stay sleep the fabric needs to have a low openness factor or block sunlight, or if the user wants lots of sunlight they would choose fabric with a loose weave for higher openness factor. The use would rank the fabrics or curtains that match their needs. This can be accomplished with the aid of pen and paper. Examiner’s note: Examiner interprets input parameters to be any characteristics about the building, location of the building, or environmental characteristics. This is support by paragraphs [0006 and 0047] of in the instant application, wherein it discloses what input data. It states input data is any data associated with building, location in the building in which fabric may installed, or environmental characteristics. It includes but is not limited to: a location of the building, a latitude of the building, a longitude of the building, an orientation of the building, at least one façade of the building on which the window treatment is to be installed, a buffer zone between a window in the building and an occupant's work space, a window size associated with a window in the building, a glass type associated with a window in the building, a window-to-wall ratio for a room in the building, a visible light transmittance for a window in the building, a daylight glare probability value that indicates an amount of time that daylight glare is probable at a location during a period of time or a maximum probable daylight glare intensity at a location over a period of time, a maximum daylight glare probability value that indicates a maximum threshold for the daylight glare probability value, a room color, depth of room in which the recommended fabric is to be installed, a type of space in the building in which the recommended fabric is to be installed, and/or automated window treatment control information.)
generating at least two fabric recommendations for the window treatment based on the rankings; and (This amount to a mental process of comparing the available fabrics and choosing or making a recommendation of two that fit the users’ needs based on the rankings. For example, a user knows they want blackout curtains, which has a low openness factor. Then looking at the curtains that blackout and ranking them on which would be best, the use selects or recommends two select fabrics that matches that requirement and are highest ranked.)
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
receiving, by a computer from a network device, input about a window in a building for receiving a window treatment, wherein the input comprises information regarding a location of the window and glass characteristics of the window; (The above limitation amount to data gathering and transmitting data, as such it amounts to extra-solution activity of transmitting data, see MPEP 2106.05(g). It also cites the use of a computer and network device which both amount to using generic computer components to execute an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
generating, by a computer, a display for displaying, on the network device recommendations and visual representation of fabrics; (The above limitation amount to using a generic computer and components performing generic functions to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
using a computer, processors, network device and non-transitory computer readable storage medium; (This amounts to use a generic computer hardware to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of
receiving, by a computer from a network device, input about a window in a building for receiving a window treatment, wherein the input comprises information regarding a location of the window and glass characteristics of the window; (This limitation amounts to transmitting data and as such is well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,”.)
generating, by a computer, a display for displaying, on the network device recommendations and visual representation of fabrics; (The above limitation amount to using a generic computer and components performing generic functions to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claims 2 and 18
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Generating/Estimate, for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations, at least one of a daylight autonomy value, a glare reduction value, or a view value that would be achieved by using each fabric; (This amounts to mental step of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user determines a glare value, view value or daylight autonomy value of fabric.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, for each of the at least two fabric recommendations, the at least one of a daylight autonomy value, a glare reduction value, or a view value that would be achieved by using each fabric. (The above limitation amount to the use of a generic computer and generic components to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, for each of the at least two fabric recommendations, the at least one of a daylight autonomy value, a glare reduction value, or a view value that would be achieved by using each fabric. (The above limitation amount to the use of a generic computer and generic components to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 4
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
determining that each of the at least two fabric recommendations two fabric recommendations meet an input use of an interior space adjacent to the window. (This is mental step of user considering matching the openness factor for a fabric to a room requirement. For example, a room that does not require a lot of sunlight will need fabric with low openness, such and blackout curtains. It is the act of person finding or matching curtains that have the blackout feature. It also accounts for the interior space adjacent to the window, which is the room itself.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
By a computer; (The above limitation amount to the use of a generic computer and generic components to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
By a computer; (The above limitation amount to the use of a generic computer and generic components to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are generic computer hardware performing generic functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 5
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 5 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
wherein the window treatment is a motorized window treatment. (This amounts to linking the abstract idea to a technological field, see MPEP 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as it merely links the abstract idea to particular technological field.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
wherein the window treatment is a motorized window treatment. (This amounts to linking the abstract idea to a technological field, see MPEP 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it merely links the abstract idea to particular technological field.
Claims 6 and 19
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
determining at least one of: a solar heat gain value based on a solar reflectance of the glass and a solar reflectance for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations; or a visible light transmittance of the glass and a visible light transmittance for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendation; estimating, for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations, an energy savings based on transmission of heat or light through the fabric; (This a mental step of observation, evaluation, and judgement. It amounts to a user considering how much light comes thru a window (wherein clear class let in full light and frosted glass lets in less light), considering if they want a lot of light or less light and thus choosing a fabric openness fabric that matches their desire, and determining how much money can be saved from using a particular fabric. For example, a user may determine by using a brighter color or sheer type fabric that allows more light will lead to energy savings versus a darker color that does not allow light in or a tighter weave fabric thus not allow the sunlight thru to heat the room as well.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
Generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, the energy savings; using a computer, processors and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. (The displaying step amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic computer components performing generic computer functions, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as it merely using generic computer components performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
Generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, the energy savings; using a computer, processors and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. (The displaying step amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic computer components performing generic computer functions, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it merely using generic computer components performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 20
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Estimating, for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations (claim 20), an illumination level at an interior space for a defined distance from the window; (This a mental step of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user determining illumination level, amount of light, in a room and determining the illumination level of each fabric is used.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
Generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, the illumination levels for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations. (The displaying step amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic computer components performing generic computer functions, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as it merely using generic computer components performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
Generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, the illumination levels for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations. (The displaying step amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic computer components performing generic computer functions, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it merely using generic computer components performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 8
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the illumination levels are estimated based on a color of a surface in the space. (The amounts to a mental process of user determining illumination levels of room based on the color of the room. For example, a user would give less illumination levels to darker rooms when compared to lighter rooms.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: there are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of: There are not additional elements.
Claim 9
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the illumination levels are estimated based on a size of the window. (This amount to a mental process of user determine illumination level of a room based on the size of the window, wherein a user would give larger illumination values to rooms with large windows compared to rooms with smaller windows.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: there are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of: There are not additional elements.
Claim 10
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the illumination levels are estimated based on at least one of a tint or visible transmittances of a glass in the window. (This amount to a mental process of user determine illumination level of a room based on the tint of a window, wherein a user would give a window with no tint larger illumination values when compared to windows with tint.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: there are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of: There are not additional elements.
Claim 11
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the illumination levels are estimated based on a window-to-wall ratio of the building. (This is a mental process of a user determining an illumination level of based on window to wall ratio. For example, a user will give a higher illumination level to a building wherein the walls up made up of glass or windows, when compared to a building that has a single small window per wall.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: there are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of: There are not additional elements.
Claim 12
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
estimating, by a computer, a daylight glare probability value based on the input parameters; (This is a mental process of a user determining an illumination level of based on window to wall ratio. For example, a user will give a higher illumination level to a building wherein the walls up made up of glass or windows, when compared to a building that has a single small window per wall.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
Generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, the daylight glare probability values for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations. (The displaying step amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic computer components performing generic computer functions, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as it merely using generic computer components performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
Generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, the daylight glare probability values for each fabric of the at least two fabric recommendations. (The displaying step amounts to applying the abstract idea using generic computer components performing generic computer functions, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it merely using generic computer components performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 13
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the daylight glare probability values are based on an orientation of the window at the location of the window. (This amount to a mental process of user determining a glare probability value based on a window location and orientation. For example, a user would give a window facing the south a high glare probability value as south facing windows get the most direct sunlight throughout the day.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: there are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of: There are not additional elements.
Claim 14
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the daylight glare probability values are based on an input of a use for an interior space adjacent to the window. (This amount a mental process of observation, judgement and evaluation wherein a user determines daylight glare probability based what the room will be used for.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: there are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of: There are not additional elements.
Claim 15
Step 1: The claim recites a method, therefore, it falls into the statutory category of a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
determining whether the at least two fabric recommendations for the window treatment meet the new use of the interior space, (This amounts to a mental step of a user determining whether the openness factor of some fabric meets the needs of the interior space, this is a mental of judgement)
wherein, if the at least two fabric recommendations of the window treatment do not meet the new use of the interior space, the method further comprise: ranking the plurality of fabrics by predict performance based on the input parameters, the metric, and the new use of the interior space adjacent to the window; and generating at least two new fabric recommendations for the window treatment. (This amount to a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user predicts how the different fabrics will perform based on input parameters, metric and new use or purpose. For example, based on a window facing the south and it being clear glass, it will get a lot of sunlight in the morning. Thus, to stay sleep (for a bedroom) the fabric needs to have a low openness factor or block sunlight. Thus, a user choose dark color curtains with a low openness. Then when deciding fabric for a different room wherein the user wants lots of sunlight (for an office or living room) they would choose fabric with a loose weave for higher openness factor. The dark color curtains with low openness would not meet the user needs, and thus user would choose different fabric. The user would rank the new fabrics based on their need and for more sunlight. This can be accomplished with the aid of pen and paper.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
receiving, by the computer from the network device, input comprising a use of an interior space adjacent to the window; receiving, by a computer from a network device, input comprising a new use of the interior space adjacent to the window; (The above limitation amount to data gathering and transmitting data, as such it amounts to extra-solution activity of transmitting data, see MPEP 2106.05(g). It also cites the use of a computer and network device which both amount to using generic computer components to execute an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, the two new recommendations for window treatment. (The above limitation amounts to using a generic computer and components performing generic functions to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of
receiving, by the computer from the network device, input comprising a use of an interior space adjacent to the window; receiving, by a computer from a network device, input comprising a new use of the interior space adjacent to the window; (This limitation amounts to transmitting data and as such is well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,”.)
generating, by the computer, a display for displaying, on the network device, the two new recommendations for window treatment. (The above limitation amounts to using a generic computer and components performing generic functions to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 16
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 16 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
comprising receiving, by the computer from the network device, a selection of a fabric from among the at least two fabric recommendations. (This limitation amounts to transmitting data, which is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as it merely extra-solution activity in combination with the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of:
comprising receiving, by the computer from the network device, a selection of a fabric from among the at least two fabric recommendations. (This limitation amounts to transmitting data, which is extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,”.)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it mere extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional in combination with the abstract idea.
Claim 21
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the predicted performance is one or more of an openness factor, wherein the openness factor is a ratio of open space to fabric material in a fabric, a visible light transmittance, or a solar heat gain. (This is a mental process of a user determining an openness factor or how much light a fabric treatment for window should allow in based on the window location and glass. For example, based on a window facing the east and it being clear glass, it will get a lot of sunlight in the morning. Thus, to stay sleep the fabric needs to have a low openness factor or block sunlight, or if the user wants lots of sunlight they would choose fabric with a loose weave for higher openness factor. This can be accomplished mentally by a user.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: there are no additional limitations.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of: There are not additional elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the amendment to claims overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101 for being abstract idea as the claims cannot be performed in the human mind and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant further points to para. [0004] of instant application that states “While current window treatments may be adjusted to provide energy savings and/or increased comfort for occupants, the type of fabric or covering material selected for installation with the window treatment is generally given little to no consideration. Instead, fabrics or covering materials are generally selected based solely on visual aesthetics.” and applicant further argues that claims generating recommendations for fabric based on context of the room and building, performance metrics and rankings, not mere aesthetics; and the claims taken as a whole are patentable.
The examiner respectfully traverses the applicant arguments as maintains the claims are not integrated into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more. The limitations of the independent claims that amount to abstract ideas of a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment are:
Using the received input to determining input parameters; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a user determines input parameters from received input data.)
Determining metrics for a plurality of fabrics to associate with the window treatment; (This is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement wherein a consider various fabrics for blinds, curtains or other window treatments and rates the properties of it as it relates to the user desires. Or the user can select a thicker fabric for insulation purposes and rating the thickness of fabric. This can be accomplished mentally by a user with aid of pen and paper.)
Ranking the plurality of fabrics by predicted performance based on input parameters and the metrics, the predicted performance comprising one or more metrics that relate to the natural light impinging on the fabric; (This amount to a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment wherein a user predicts how the different fabrics will perform based the location of the window, the glass characteristics, desire amount of natural light and fabric characteristics, and ranks the fabrics. For example, based on a window facing the east and it being clear glass, it will get a lot of sunlight in the morning. Thus, to stay sleep the fabric needs to have a low openness factor or block sunlight, or if the user wants lots of sunlight they would choose fabric with a loose weave for higher openness factor. The use would rank the fabrics or curtains that match their needs. This can be accomplished with the aid of pen and paper. Examiner’s note: Examiner interprets input parameters to be any characteristics about the building, location of the building, or environmental characteristics. This is support by paragraphs [0006 and 0047] of in the instant application, wherein it discloses what input data. It states input data is any data associated with building, location in the building in which fabric may installed, or environmental characteristics. It includes but is not limited to: a location of the building, a latitude of the building, a longitude of the building, an orientation of the building, at least one façade of the building on which the window treatment is to be installed, a buffer zone between a window in the building and an occupant's work space, a window size associated with a window in the building, a glass type associated with a window in the building, a window-to-wall ratio for a room in the building, a visible light transmittance for a window in the building, a daylight glare probability value that indicates an amount of time that daylight glare is probable at a location during a period of time or a maximum probable daylight glare intensity at a location over a period of time, a maximum daylight glare probability value that indicates a maximum threshold for the daylight glare probability value, a room color, depth of room in which the recommended fabric is to be installed, a type of space in the building in which the recommended fabric is to be installed, and/or automated window treatment control information.)
generating at least two fabric recommendations for the window treatment based on the rankings; and (This amount to a mental process of comparing the available fabrics and choosing or making a recommendation of two that fit the users’ needs based on the rankings. For example, a user knows they want blackout curtains, which has a low openness factor. Then looking at the curtains that blackout and ranking them on which would be best, the use selects or recommends two select fabrics that matches that requirement and are highest ranked.)
The above abstract ideas are not integrated into a practical application nor amount to signification mor as the remaining limitations of the independent claims are:
receiving, by a computer from a network device, input about a window in a building for receiving a window treatment, wherein the input comprises information regarding a location of the window and glass characteristics of the window; (This limitation amounts to transmitting data which is extra-solution activity and as such is well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) wherein it cites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network,”.)
generating, by a computer, a display for displaying, on the network device recommendations and visual representation of fabrics; (The above limitation amount to using a generic computer and components performing generic functions to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above. Thus, the rejection under 35 USC 101 for being abstract idea is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAULINHO E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1358. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 10AM-6PM CST.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached on 571-270-3169. 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.
/PAULINHO E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights