DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 12/01/2025. Claims 1, 11, and 21 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-30 are pending and have been addressed below. 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
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 1 recites a machine (i.e., a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), claim 11 recites a manufacture, (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means.), and claim 21 recites a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
3. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 which is representative of claim 11 and 21 recites:
“receive a first user input selection of test fit parameters, wherein at least one of the selected test fit parameters comprises one of a plurality of overall office layout styles for all of a subject property which each have a different overall ratio of single-user workspace to common space for all of the subject property and usable square footage calculated from…an available unit in a property record” and “a second user input selection of one or more property records each of the subject property;”, “stored data for design and configurations for different types of workstations to generate a leasing cost estimate and a construction cost estimate including a determination of a headcount and numbers and types of office space based on the test fit parameters including the usable square footage and the selected subject property record including gearing ratios defining ratios of usable space to total for each of the one or more property records, adjust the numbers and types of office space and sizes based on the one of the overall office layout styles which each have the different overall ratio of single-user workspace to common space for all of the subject property;”
The invention recites an abstract idea of estimating space and budgeting requirements for real estate which covers fundamental economic practices (i.e., insurance, mitigating risk), commercial interactions, (i.e., sales or marketing activities, business relations), managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), and mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical calculations), that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)
Applicant’s Specification emphasizes in at least ¶ 0003 Real estate brokerages compete to provide faster, more accurate estimates for their clients to select properties for leasing/purchasing. Many factors affect the cost to a particular client for a particular property. A tool is needed to help brokers provide fast, accurate estimates and visualizations for clients to compare properties under consideration.
The limitations of “receive a first user input selection” and “a second user input selection” in the context of this claim encompasses a series of steps a user may perform when attempting to plan leasing and construction costs for a real estate property which is concept that includes fundamental economic principles or practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The step of “generate a leasing cost estimate and a construction cost estimate” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes for collecting and comparing known information related to the real estate property to generate the estimates which are steps that may be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. Also, the step of “generate” recites a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine variable(s) or number(s). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
4. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a system”, “memory comprising programmed instructions stored thereon”, ”one or more processors”, “from a client device”, “a CAD layout”, “initiate one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) to integrate with one or more third party applications based on the test fit parameters;”, “execute executable design rules comprising”, “execute at least one of a two-dimensional computer-assisted drafting (CAD) design tool, a three-dimensional CAD floor design tool, or a three-dimensional animation design tool to”, “with suitable executable instructions to implement in the graphical user interface of the client computing device” – see claims 1, 11, and 21 are recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification in at least [¶ 0023-0025, 0050]. Thus, because the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting generic computer components and functionalities in light of the disclosure. These claimed additional elements merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)
The other additional elements of: “generate…a proposed layout of a floor plan based on the test fit parameters including the usable square footage and the subject property record;”, “transmit…a comparison between a combination of two or more of the generated leasing cost estimate, the generated construction cost estimate, or the generated proposed layout of the floor plan” adds insignificant extra solution activity, (i.e., data output/transmission), to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05 (g)
The other additional element of: “in real time” is an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h) Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
5. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a system”, “memory comprising programmed instructions stored thereon”, ”one or more processors”, “from a client device”, “a CAD layout”, “initiate one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) to integrate with one or more third party applications based on the test fit parameters;”, “execute executable design rules comprising”, “execute at least one of a two-dimensional computer-assisted drafting (CAD) design tool, a three-dimensional CAD floor design tool, or a three-dimensional animation design tool to”, “with suitable executable instructions to implement in the graphical user interface of the client computing device” – see claims 1, 11, and 21 amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
The other additional elements of: “generate…a proposed layout of a floor plan based on the test fit parameters including the usable square footage and the subject property record;”, “transmit…a comparison between a combination of two or more of the generated leasing cost estimate, the generated construction cost estimate, or the generated proposed layout of the floor plan” were considered insignificant extra-solution activity. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known, routine, and/or conventional.
As discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II), the Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, Alice, Versata, and Ultramercial court decisions held that “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “storing and retrieving information”, “arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price”, “presenting offers and gathering statistics” are computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. As such, these steps in the claim remain as insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim(s) are in-eligible at Step 2B.
6. Dependent claims include 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30.
Claims 2, 12, and 22 recite “wherein the proposed layout of the floor plan includes at least one of the following: a two-dimensional computer-assisted drafting (CAD) floor plan, a three-dimensional CAD floor plan, or a three-dimensional animation of a walk-through of at least a portion of the floor plan.” which further describes the type of floorplan at a high-level of generality. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Claims 3, 13, and 23 recite “wherein the test fit parameters define the one or more specifications for an application of the subject property.” which further describes the type of data/information that may be within the abstract idea, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claims 4, 14, and 24 recite “wherein the selected test fit parameters include at least one of the following information: headcount, office style, office finish levels, the usable square footage, office sizes, cost, and special requirements.” which further describes the type of data/information that may be within the abstract idea, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claims 5, 15, and 25 recite “wherein the office style determines how densely the subject property is used by the user's application.” which further describes the type of data/information that may be within the abstract idea, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claims 6, 16, and 26 recite “wherein the office styles include at least one of the following: traditional, modern or progressive office styles.” which further describes the type of data/information that may be within the abstract idea, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claims 7, 17, and 27 recite “wherein the traditional office style includes a first ratio of single-user workspace to common space, the progressive office style includes a second ratio of single-use workspace to common space, and the modern office style includes a third ratio of single-user work space to common space, wherein the first ratio is greater than the second ratio, and the third ratio falls between the first ratio and the second ratio and wherein the selected test fit parameters for office sizes are adjusted based on the selected one of the office styles.” which further describes the type of data/information that may be within the abstract idea, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claims 8, 18, and 28 recite “wherein the headcount includes at least one of the following: a number of workers or a number of workspaces.” which further describes the type of data/information that may be within the abstract idea, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claims 9, 19, and 29 recite “wherein the parameters of the property record include space available for lease or rent, gearing ratios, leasing or rental cost per square foot, estimated tax expense per square foot, estimated utilities cost, and a CAD layout of each available unit.” which further describes the type of data/information that may be within the abstract idea, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claims 10, 20, 30 recite “wherein the selected test fit parameters further comprise a tenant allowance cost, a specialty budget cost, or a lease or rental rate cost for part or all of the property, wherein the generated leasing cost estimate and the generated construction cost estimate are adjusted based on the tenant allowance cost, the specialty budget cost, or the lease or rental rate cost for part or all of the property.” which further describes the type of data/information that may be within the abstract idea, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Therefore, with respect to the dependent claims when viewed separately and in combination with the judicial exception, the recited limitations as whole fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 01 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “The amendments to the independent claims further clarify the specific technical operations and data structures that integrate the claimed invention into a practical application and provide significantly more than any abstract idea.
The Office has alleged the claims are directed to abstract ideas encompassing "certain methods of organizing human activity" and "mental processes." However, this characterization misapplies the guidance from MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), which expressly states that "not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas" and that this grouping "is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated subgroupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings. The claims as amended do not fall within these enumerated subgroupings.”
“Rather than reciting fundamental economic principles in the abstract, the claims recite specific technical operations involving executable design rules that comprise stored data for design dimensions and configurations for different types of workstations. For example, amended claim 1, similarly independent claims 11 and 21, now recites "execute executable design rules comprising stored data for design dimensions and configurations for different types of workstations to generate a leasing cost estimate and a construction cost estimate including a determination of a headcount and numbers and types of office space based on the test fit parameters including the usable square footage and the selected subject property record including gearing ratios defining ratios of usable space to total space for each of the one or more property records, wherein the executable design rules are configured to adjust the numbers and types of office space and office sizes based on the one of the overall office layout styles."
“This limitation describes a rule-based system that operates on specific technical data structures-including stored design dimensions and configurations for different types of workstations, gearing ratios (e.g. ratios of useable space to total space, facilities requirements per square foot, etc.), and usable square footage calculated from an analysis of a layout of the total square footage from the property record to automatically adjust calculations based on these specific technical parameters. This goes well beyond abstract economic principles and do not encompass certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis. The specific type of data or information, i.e., data structures-including stored design dimensions and configurations for different types of workstations, gearing ratios (e.g. ratios of useable space to total space, facilities requirements per square foot, etc.), and usable square footage calculated from an analysis of a layout of the total square footage from the property record, being selected and manipulated does not make the claim any less abstract or change the previous analysis.
The limitations recite a series of steps for how a user may select first and second inputs for generating lease and construction estimates for an office location, which covers subject matter falling within the organizing certain methods of human activity, mental processes, and mathematical concepts groupings. In the instant case, remarks rely upon the additional element of “execute executable design rules comprising” which does not preclude the claim limitations from falling within the abstract idea groupings. The additional element of “execute executable design rules comprising” at best represents a model described at a high-level of generality that is merely being used to perform the abstract idea. Thus, the recitations of “execute executable design rules comprising” add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception and/or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, See MPEP 2106.05 (f). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The amended claims also recite that the usable square footage is "calculated from a CAD layout of an available unit in a property record." The computing device may receive or automatically determine the usable square footage from an analysis of a layout of the total square footage from the property record. The computing device is able to analyze and calculate usable square footage from total square footage based on information in the selected property record and one or more other selected parameters, such as office style which may include types and sizes of workstations. This technical operation of analyzing CAD layout data to extract usable square footage is not a fundamental economic principle or a method of organizing human activity it is a specific technical process for analyzing and processing CAD data which again as recited do not encompass certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the two-part analysis. As previously explained above relying upon the data or information being selected and manipulated does not make the claim any less abstract or change the previous analysis. In the instant case, “a CAD layout” at best represents a digital, 2D sheet or page to prepare a model for plotting described at a high-level of generality that is merely being used to perform the abstract idea. Thus, the recitations of “a CAD layout” add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception and/or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, See MPEP 2106.05 (f). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Similarly, the claims recite "initiating one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) to integrate with one or more third party applications based on the test fit parameters." The computing device may initiate one or more APIs to integrate with one or more third party applications which may be selected by the third party user of the computing device, although other manners for initiating APIs and/or identifying applications could be used, such as based the types and/or numbers test fit parameters. This describes dynamic integration where the specific APIs initiated depend on the particular test fit parameters selected, which goes beyond abstract organizing of human activity or mental processes and describes specific technical computing operations for system integration.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the two-part analysis. It is important for Applicant to note, the step of “initiating one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) to integrate with one or more third party applications based on the test fit parameters." was previously considered under Step 2A - Prong Two and does not alter the analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(f) In the instant case, the step of “initiating” allows the claimed system to send a request for data and a third party application to send a response. Thus, the recited “one or more application programming interfaces (APIs)” and “one or more third party applications” operate in their normal or ordinary capacity to request and receive data to aid in performing the judicial exception. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The amended claims further recite that the executable design rules are configured to "adjust the numbers and types of office space and office sizes" based on the office layout styles. The computing device may adjust one or more other selected parameters, such as office sizes and/or types, based on and to fit within, for example, the usable square footage and the selected office style. This automatic adjustment functionality based on technical constraints represents a specific technical operation, not an abstract idea and do not encompass certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the two-part analysis. As previously explained above, further specifying the type of data or information being selected and manipulated does not make the claim any less abstract or change the previous analysis. Also, the “the executable design rules are configured to” is recited as apply it (or equivalent) or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using a computer. It is important to note "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). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Finally, the amended claims recite generating the proposed layout "in real time." Examples of this technology can in real time provide various levels of detailed generated estimates and layouts including 3D layouts as well as real time animations to provide enhanced visualization of each possible design. The real-time generation of CAD layouts based on the coordinated processing of multiple technical parameters represents a technical solution to a technological problem in the field of real estate estimation software and do not encompass certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis. In the instant case, adding the additional element of “in real time” is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception but does not add any meaningful limitations to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(h) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “By way of example. the amended claims recite a coordinated system that: 1. Receives specific technical parameters including office layout styles with different ratios of single-user workspace to common space and usable square footage calculated from CAD layout analysis; 2. Initiates APIs for third-party integration based on these parameters; 3. Executes adjustable design rules comprising stored data for design dimensions and configurations for different types of workstations;
4. Processes property records including gearing ratios defining ratios of usable space to total space; 5. Automatically adjusts the numbers and types of office space and office sizes based on the office layout styles; and 6. Operates CAD tools to generate floor plan layouts in real time.”
“These elements work together to provide a technical solution to the problem of generating accurate real estate estimates and visualizations. The technology is able to utilize the actual usable square footage as well as the layout of that actual square footage as parameters with other selected parameters, such as office style, to generate exemplary estimates and/or 2D and/or 3D layouts and/or animations to provide a client a real time perspective of the property in different possible configurations along with illustrating any possible restrictions the layout may pose.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. The claims are a combination of results-oriented steps for gathering, analyzing, and presenting information in different possible layouts according to a user’s selected inputs without improving the functioning of computers or any other technology. Here, the claims merely provide a business outcome for generating real estate estimate and visualizations, rather than a technological solution to a technological problem as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a).
At best the additional elements of “a system”, “memory comprising programmed instructions stored thereon”, ”one or more processors”, “from a client device”, “a CAD layout”, “initiate one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) to integrate with one or more third party applications based on the test fit parameters;”, “execute executable design rules comprising”, “execute at least one of a two-dimensional computer-assisted drafting (CAD) design tool, a three-dimensional CAD floor design tool, or a three-dimensional animation design tool to”, “with suitable executable instructions to implement in the graphical user interface of the client computing device” are recited at a high level of generality as generic components that are used as tools or mere instructions to perform the generic functions of the abstract idea and apply it in a technical environment. The Applicant’s Specification [Fig. 1, ¶ 0023-0026, 0032] confirms the additional elements are generic computer components that are used as tools to perform the abstract idea. Such a generic computer implementation does not make the abstract idea patent eligible because a "wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of 'additional featur[e]' that provides any 'practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [ abstract idea] itself."' Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."); Trinity, 72 F.4th at 1362 (performing the abstract idea on a handheld device, web servers, and a database did not make the claims eligible); Killian, 45 F.4th at 1382-83 (limiting an abstract idea to a technological environment and a generic computer implementation is insufficient); BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[C]laims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer.");Affinity, 838 F.3d at 1271 (customized user interface provided abstract tailored content); TL!, 823 F. 3d at 613 (claiming a mobile telephone system environment did not make the claims non-abstract). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The dependent claims further demonstrate the technical nature of the invention. For example, claim 7 recites that "the traditional office style includes a first ratio of single-user workspace to common space, the progressive office style includes a second ratio of single-use workspace to common space, and the modern office style includes a third ratio of single-user work space to common space, wherein the first ratio is greater than the second ratio, and the third ratio falls between the first ratio and the second ratio and wherein the selected test fit parameters for office sizes are adjusted based on the selected one of the office styles." This establishes a specific mathematical relationship (first ratio > third ratio > second ratio) that creates technical constraints on how the system categorizes office layout styles and adjusts operational parameters accordingly and integrate any exception into a practical application. Thus, the currently pending claims clearly recite a practical application of the claimed technology, as required by Prong Two of the revised Step 2A recited in the 2019 Guidelines. As a result, since these currently pending claims recited a practical application, the claimed subject matter is patent eligible.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. In the instant case, the limitations of claim 7 further narrow or describe the data or information relating to the types of office styles and the manner in which the data may be utilized within the abstract idea, however, these limitations even when combined with the claimed invention are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor do they provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Even if the claims were found not to be integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. By way of example, the combination of: - Calculating usable square footage from CAD layout analysis; - Executing design rules comprising stored data for design dimensions and configurations for different types of workstations; - Processing property records including gearing ratios defining ratios of usable space to total space; - Automatically adjusting numbers and types of office space and office sizes based on office layout styles; and - Generating proposed layouts in real time represents a specific, unconventional arrangement of elements that provides more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.”
“The specification confirms this technical implementation throughout, particularly in describing how the technology utilizes the actual usable square footage as well as the layout of that actual square footage as parameters with other selected parameters, such as office style, to generate exemplary estimates and/or 2D and/or 3D layouts and/or animations to provide a client a real time perspective of the property in different possible configurations. Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons the claims, as amended, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter that provides a technical solution to a technological problem in the field of real estate estimation software. The coordinated functionality of calculating usable square footage from CAD layout analysis, executing adjustable design rules with stored design dimensions and configurations, processing gearing ratios, integrating with third-party applications through APIs, automatically adjusting office space parameters, and generating CAD-based floor plans in real time represents significantly more than any abstract idea and integrates any judicial exception into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Step 2B for inventive concept. It is important to note, most of the considerations under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B overlap each other. The Applicant’s Specification [Fig. 1, ¶ 0023-0026, 0032] confirms that the additional elements, i.e., computer components, are conventional elements that perform routine functions of collecting, aggregating, and analyzing data to display information tailored to an end-user’s input. No technical improvements related to CAD are recited. As an ordered combination, the limitations recite no more that when they are considered individually. They recite result-oriented functions rather than technical improvements to computers or technology. See Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Tech. Holdings Ltd, 955 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed Cir. 2020). If a claim’s only inventive concept is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent eligible application of an abstract idea. The courts have previously held claims use off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology to gather, send, and present desired information lack an inventive concept. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom, (Fed. Cir. 2016). As such, the recited physical components above behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary use and the recited steps do nothing more than describe what it means to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Office has alleged that the executable design rules could be performed "by the human mind or with pen and paper," but this characterization does not account for the specific technical operations now recited in the amended claims which could not reasonably be performed in the human mind. By way of example, the claims specifically require:- Executable design rules comprising stored data for design dimensions and configurations for different types of workstations; - Calculating usable square footage from analysis of CAD layout data from property records; - Processing gearing ratios defining ratios of usable space to total space; - Automatically adjusting the numbers and types of office space and office sizes based on office layout styles; and - Generating CAD-based floor plans in real time. This coordinated, automated functionality involving analysis of CAD data structures, application of stored design rules with specific dimensional data, processing of gearing ratios, and real-time generation of CAD layouts goes well beyond what could reasonably be performed manually with pen and paper. The Office's reliance on paragraph [0003] of the specification, which describes the general problem of providing estimates for real estate properties, does not adequately address the specific technical implementation recited in the amended claims. The claims go beyond the general problem statement to recite particular technical solutions involving executable design rules with stored design dimensions and configurations, API integration, CAD layout analysis to calculate usable square footage, gearing ratio processing, and real-time CAD tool operation. In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, the Office is respectfully requested to reconsider and withdraw this rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The amendments to the independent claims clarify the specific technical elements, data structures, and their integration into a practical application, addressing the Office's concerns under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims as amended recite patent-eligible subject matter that provides a technical solution involving coordinated processing of CAD data, gearing ratios, executable design rules with stored design dimensions and configurations, and API integration to generate real-time real estate estimates and visualizations.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claims remain ineligible under Alice two-part analysis. It is important for Applicant to note, the Examiner has updated the rejection for clarification purposes in view of the amendments to the independent claims. The previous rejection pointed to [¶ 0003] of Applicant’s Specification to emphasize the focus of the claimed invention. The present rejection now points to [Fig. 1, ¶ 0023-0026] to emphasize the generic nature of the computer components recited and being used to aid in performing the abstract idea. At best, the claimed invention is a real estate tool that requires different types of data or information to be selected, gathered, and manipulated in a results-oriented manner to generate leasing and construction cost estimates and floor plan layout to support a business outcome for an end-user, rather than a technological solution to a technological problem that supports integration into a practical application or inventive concept. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
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 EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629