DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 04/30/2026. 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/30/2026 has been entered.
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”, “wherein the usable square footage is determined…to perform a reverse calculation that analyzes…total square footage from the property record to determine the usable square footage distinct from the total square footage based on architectural constraints of the property” 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, wherein each type of workstation comprise a particular stored design dimensions and configurations 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” for clients 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 and mathematical calculations 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. 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”, “by executing programmed instructions”, “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, 0037, 0047, 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 simultaneous comparison between a plurality of generated estimates for different ones of the plurality of overall office layout styles for the same property record, each generated estimate comprising 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”, “by executing programmed instructions”, “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 simultaneous comparison between a plurality of generated estimates for different ones of the plurality of overall office layout styles for the same property record, each generated estimate comprising 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
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “The Office has alleged that the claims are directed to "estimating space and budgeting requirements for real estate which covers fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions managing personal behavior or interactions between people, and mathematical concepts." (See, page 3 of the Office Action). However, this characterization by the Office is respectfully overbroad and improperly abstracts away the specific technical features now recited in the amended claims.
The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) 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" and "is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings."
The Office has further alleged that "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." (See, page 3 of the Office Action). Applicant respectfully disagrees. As now even further amended, the currently pending claims now recite operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind as discussed in greater detail below.
Amended independent claim 1 (Similarly amended independent claims 11 and 21) recite, "executing programmed instructions to perform a reverse calculation that analyzes the CAD layout of total square footage from the property record to determine the usable square footage distinct from the total square footage based on architectural constraints of the property." This is a specific computational analysis of a digital CAD data structure-analyzing a computer-aided design layout to computationally extract usable square footage from total square footage based on architectural constraints. A human cannot practically perform this analysis of a CAD data structure in their mind.”
“The specification confirms that "the computing device 100 may also initiate executable instructions to perform a reverse calculation of the usable square footage for a particular selected property record or records" and "the computing device 100 may be 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." (See, paragraph [0051] of the above-identified patent application).”
Amended independent claim 1 (Similarly amended independent claims 11 and 21) also recite executable design rules comprising stored data for design dimensions and configurations for different types of workstations, "wherein each type of workstation comprises particular stored design dimensions and configurations." These are specific technical data structures with stored dimensional data-not abstract business rules that a person could apply mentally. The specification confirms that "[e]ach of these types of workstations 322 may comprise instructions for particular stored design dimensions and configurations." (See, paragraph [0030] of the above-identified patent application).
Additionally, amended independent claim 1 (Similarly amended independent
claims 11 and 21) recites executing CAD design tools to "generate in real time a proposed layout of a floor plan." Real-time generation of CAD-based floor plans from coordinated processing of multiple technical parameters is not a process that can be practically performed in the human mind.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. It is important for Applicant to note that an abstract idea may be described at different levels of abstraction. The previous rejections of record were indeed proper as the limitations that recited an abstract idea were identified and the rejection explained why the limitations fall within the abstract idea groupings. The Specification makes clear in [¶ 0004]-[0006], [0027]-[0038] – This invention describes a software tool for helping real estate brokers and clients estimate how much space a business needs and what it will cost to lease and build out that space. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(III)(C) claims can recite a mental processes even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Thus the specificity of the presently recited techniques being used to carry out the computational analysis does not remove the claims from falling within the abstract idea groupings. As for the technical data structures, merely reciting components more specific than a generic computer does not preclude a claim from being directed to an abstract idea. See BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1289 For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples support this position. In Example 37 (Relocation of Icons on GUI), Claim 2 was found NOT to recite a judicial exception at Step 2A Prong One because the determining step required "action by a processor that cannot be practically applied in the mind" specifically, "the claimed step of determining the amount of use of each icon by tracking how much memory has been allocated to each application associated with each icon over a predetermined period of time is not practically performed in the human mind, at least because it requires a processor accessing computer memory indicative of application usage." Similarly here, the reverse calculation analyzing a CAD layout data structure to extract usable square footage requires computational analysis of digital architectural data that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, Example 37 is not applicable because Applicant has not shown how the asserted claims parallel the factual patterns discussed in the Training Example. The courts have previously held, the increased speed and efficiency resulting from use of computers (with no improved computer techniques) do not themselves create eligibility. See, e.g., Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (rejecting argument that “humans could not mentally engage in the ‘same claimed process’ because they could not perform ‘nanosecond comparisons and aggregate result values with huge numbers of polls and members’”). The claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that using existing CAD technology they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. For the reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Likewise, in Example 38 (Simulating an Analog Audio Mixer), the claim was found NOT to recite a judicial exception because "while some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims" and "the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind." Similarly, while the amended claims involve calculations, the specific technical operations of analyzing CAD layouts via reverse calculations, executing stored design rules with particular dimensional data for each workstation type, and generating real-time CAD floor plans are not practically performed in the human mind.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, Example 38 is not applicable because Applicant has not shown how the asserted claims parallel the factual patterns discussed in the Training Example. The Applicant’s reply here concedes the claim does recite mathematical calculations. Applicant is merely relying upon the field of use or technical environment in which the abstract idea is being performed. The series of steps, i.e., analyzing, executing, generating, recite mental processes for estimating space requirements and costs for clients. The claim recites limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Even assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims as amended clearly integrate any such exception into a practical application. The Office has alleged that the 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." (See, page 3 of the Office Action).
Applicant respectfully disagrees because the amended claims go far beyond
"apply it"-they recite a specific technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology and does not exist outside computerized systems. Specifically, the problem addressed by amended independent claim 1 (Similarly amended independent claims 11 and 21) arises from the need to computationally analyze digital CAD layout data structures to extract usable square footage from total square footage based on architectural constraints of a property-a task that requires programmed instructions to perform a reverse calculation on the CAD data.
As described by way of example in the specification, "older properties may have larger total square footage than usable square footage because of their architectural design which can impact the generated estimates and layout." (See, paragraph [0037] of the above-identified patent application). The specification further explains that "the computing device 100 may be 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." (See, paragraph [0051] of the above- identified patent application). This computational analysis of CAD data to distinguish usable square footage from total square footage based on architectural constraints is a problem that arises only in the context of processing digital CAD data structures-it is not a problem that exists in manual real estate estimation. Moreover, the amended independent claims require this computed usable square footage to then be used as an input to executable design rules comprising particular stored design dimensions and configurations for each workstation type, which in turn drive real-time CAD floor plan generation and simultaneous multi-style comparison. This coordinated pipeline-from CAD data analysis through design rule execution to real-time layout generation-represents a specific technical architecture, not merely the application of an abstract idea on a generic computer. This is analogous to the situation in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where the Federal Circuit found eligibility because the claims addressed a problem "specifically arising in the realm of computer networks"-namely, retaining website visitors who would otherwise be transported away. Here, the problem of computationally analyzing CAD layout data to extract usable square footage, executing stored design rules with particular workstation dimensions, and generating real-time CAD floor plans for simultaneous multi-style comparison is a problem that specifically arises in the realm of computerized CAD-based design systems.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. Here, the passages relied upon by Applicant from the Specification and remarks do not address any of the additional elements recited in claims 1 and 11. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The Specification does not support a finding that the claims are directed to a technological improvement in the functioning of a computer itself or any other computing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a) The focus of the remarks discuss the prior art and claim limitations recited with the judicial exception. As such, the improvements being claimed may improve how the abstract idea is performed but does not improve any of the generic computing equipment being used to aid in performing the judicial exception. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Office has alleged that "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." (See, page 6 of the Office Action). Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Office's characterization of a CAD layout as merely "a digital, 2D sheet or page to prepare a model for plotting" fundamentally mischaracterizes how the CAD layout is used in the amended claims. A CAD layout is not merely a static image or printable page-it is a structured digital data representation of architectural geometry that encodes spatial relationships, dimensions, wall placements, structural elements, and other architectural features of a property unit. The Office's reduction of this to a "2D sheet" ignores the inherent technical complexity of CAD data structures. Critically, the amended claims do not merely reference or display a CAD layout.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The “CAD layout” was considered an additional element under Prong Two of the analysis. Here, the Applicant does not provide any findings from the Specification that discuss the technical features or details related to the recited CAD layout. Instead, the response attempts to mischaracterize the previous rejection and provides conclusory statements in regards to the CAD layout which is insufficient to confer patent eligibility. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Amended independent claim 1 (Similarly amended independent claims 11 and 21) now recite, "executing programmed instructions to perform a reverse calculation that analyzes the CAD layout of total square footage from the property record to determine the usable square footage distinct from the total square footage based on architectural constraints of the property." This requires the system to actively parse and computationally analyze the CAD data structure to extract usable square footage-a value that differs from total square footage due to architectural constraints such as structural columns, irregular floor shapes, mechanical spaces, and other features encoded in the CAD data.
As described in the specification, "older properties may have larger total square footage than usable square footage because of their architectural design which can impact the generated estimates and layout." (See, paragraph [0037] of the above-identified patent application). The specification further explains that "the computing device 100 may be 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." (See, paragraph [0051] of the above-identified patent application). This is not using a CAD layout as a passive data source it is performing a specific computational analysis on a specific technical data structure. The reverse calculation requires the system to interpret the geometric and spatial data encoded in the CAD layout, account for architectural constraints that reduce usable space, and compute a usable square footage value that then drives all downstream processing-including the execution of design rules with stored workstation dimensions, real-time floor plan generation, and simultaneous multi-style comparison. This coordinated use of CAD data as both an input to and a constraint on the system's computational pipeline is a specific technical operation that goes far beyond merely "plotting" or displaying a 2D sheet. Moreover, the computed usable square footage is then together with the "unique layout of one or more floors of the selected property record" to determine that, for example, "a client may desire a progressive office style parameter, but with the unique layout of one or more floors of the selected property record, would be able to have estimates generated for a progressive office style parameter and a modern office style parameter, and be provided with a generated estimate and/or visualization with 2D or 3D layouts and/or animation that illustrate the estimate for a modern office style parameter may be a more advantageous layout." (See, paragraph [0051] of the above-identified patent application). This demonstrates that the CAD layout data is not merely displayed it actively constrains and directs the system's computational operations, influencing which office styles are feasible and how the design rules generate layouts for the specific architectural geometry of the property.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Here, the Applicant purports benefits for using the CAD layout, however, these benefits alleged by Applicant are not technical improvements in computer technology. Instead, they are benefits that flow from performing an abstract idea in conjunction with a CAD layout. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Office has alleged that "the step of 'initiating' allows the claimed system to send a request for data and a third party application to send a response" and that APIs "operate in their normal or ordinary capacity to request and receive data." (See, page 14 of the Office Action). Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Office's characterization reduces the API limitation to a simple request-response data exchange, but this mischaracterizes the claim language. Amended independent claim 1 (Similarly amended independent claims 11 and 21) recite" initiate one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) to integrate with one or more third party applications based on the test fit parameters" The operative phrase is "based on the test fit parameters"-the claims do not recite merely sending a generic data request to a fixed set of third party applications. Rather, the specific APIs that are initiated, and the specific third party applications that are integrated, are dynamically determined based on the particular test fit parameters selected by the user. The specification confirms this dynamic, parameter-dependent integration. As described in paragraph [0050], "the computing device 100 may also 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 100, although other manners for initiating APIs and/or identifying applications could be used, such as based the types and/or numbers test fit parameters, such as the exemplary test fit parameters 300(1) shown in FIG. 3A or the exemplary test fit parameters 300(2) shown in FIG. 3B, as discussed in greater detail below, which are selected or otherwise obtained based on a client's needs for a particular application."
paragraph [0050] of the above-identified patent application). This means the system determines which third party applications to integrate with based on the types and numbers of test fit parameters that have been selected-for example, different combinations of office style, headcount, usable square footage, and cost parameters may require integration with different third party applications to obtain the data needed for the specific estimate being generated. This is not an API operating in its "normal or ordinary capacity to request and receive data." This is a conditional, parameter-driven integration mechanism where the system's integration architecture dynamically adapts based on the user's selected parameters. The system does not simply call a fixed API endpoint it determines which APIs to initiate and which third party applications to integrate with based on the specific technical parameters at hand. This dynamic integration is part of the coordinated technical pipeline recited in the amended claims, where the test fit parameters drive not only the design rule execution and CAD layout generation, but also the system's integration with external applications. Moreover, this API initiation step is not an isolated element it functions as part of the ordered combination of technical operations recited in amended independent claim 1 (Similarly amended independent claims 11 and 21). The APIs are initiated "based on the test fit parameters," and those same test fit parameters also drive the reverse calculation of usable square footage from the CAD layout, the execution of design rules with stored workstation dimensions, and the real-time generation of CAD floor plans. Accordingly, this interconnected use of the test fit parameters across multiple technical operations-API integration, CAD data analysis, design rule execution, and real-time layout generation-demonstrates that the API limitation is not merely a generic data retrieval step but an integral part of a specific technical architecture.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Here, the Applicant proposes benefits for using the APIs in the claim, however, these benefits alleged by Applicant are not supported in the Specification [i.e., ¶ 0050] as shown below:
In step 252, the computing device 100 may also 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 100, although other manners for initiating APIs and/or identifying applications could be used, such as based the types and/or numbers test fit parameters, such as the exemplary test fit parameters 300(1) shown in FIG. 3A or the exemplary test fit parameters 300(2) shown in FIG. 3B, as discussed in greater detail below, which are selected or otherwise obtained based on a client's needs for a particular application.
Here, the Specification does not provide any technical details related to use of the API’s and makes clear the one or more API’s as claimed are nothing more than generic computing components. Merely adding generic computer components to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See MPEP 2106.05(b) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Office has alleged that "'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." (See, pages 11 and 12 of the Office Action). Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Office's characterization treats "executable design rules" as if it were merely a label applied to a generic computer process. But the amended claims specify what these design rules actually comprise-they are not empty abstractions. Amended independent claim 1 (Similarly amended independent claims 11 and 21) recite, "execute executable design rules comprising stored data for design dimensions and configurations for different types of workstations, wherein each type of workstation comprises particular stored design dimensions and configurations."
This is not "apply it" language-it describes specific technical data structures with concrete stored dimensional data for each workstation type that constrain and direct the system's operation. The specification confirms the technical specificity of these design rules. As described in paragraph [0030], "[e]ach of these types of workstations 322 may comprise instructions for particular stored design dimensions and configurations." (See, paragraph [0030] of the above-identified patent application). The types of workstations include enclosed offices, cubicles, and specialized types such as reception area workstations, each with their own stored dimensional data. This is not a generic "apply it" instruction-it is a specific data structure that stores particular physical dimensions and spatial configurations for each distinct workstation type. Moreover, the specification describes that these executable design rules operate differently depending on the selected office style. As described in paragraph [0032], each office style "has associated executable rules on how densely the subject property will be used by the client's application." (See,, paragraph [0032] of the above-identified patent application). For example, "the stored executable rules for designing a layout of a traditional office style 326 may include a higher ratio of single-user workstations (e.g. enclosed offices and cubicles) to common space" while "the stored executable rules for designing a layout of a progressive office style 330 may include a lower ratio of single-user workstations in favor of more common space (e.g. workbenches, common areas, conference/collaboration rooms)." (See, paragraph [0032] of the above-identified patent application). The specification further confirms that "the particular office sizes 338 and workstation sizes 340 comprise data and executable design rules which correspond with the selected on of the traditional office style 326, the modern office style 328, or the progressive office style 330." (See, paragraph [0034] of the above-identified patent application). Thus, the executable design rules are not merely a label for a generic computation. They comprise a structured rule-based system comprising: (a) particular stored design dimensions and configurations for each type of workstation, (b) style-specific rules that define different ratios of workstation types to common space, and (c) logic that adjusts office sizes and types based on the selected office style and the computed usable square footage. This is analogous to the specific rules found eligible in McRO just as the McRO claims recited specific rules for setting morph weights and transitions through phonemes to automate lip synchronization, the amended claims recite specific design rules with stored dimensional data for each workstation type that automate the generation of office layouts based on the interplay between office style, usable square footage, and workstation configurations.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Here, the passages [¶ 0032, 0034] describe different manners in which the design rules may be implemented to achieve a result without describing how the design rules provide improvements to computer functionalities. As for the claims in McRO, the presently recited claims recite using design rules to aid in performing the judicial exception however they do not recite a comparable technological solution. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Office's citation to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) for the proposition that "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception is inapposite. The amended claims do not merely claim improved speed they recite a specific rule based system with particular stored dimensional data that constrains how the system generates layouts and estimates. The improvement is not in the speed of computation, but in the specific technical architecture that uses stored workstation dimensions, style-specific design rules, and computed usable square footage to generate coordinated outputs.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Specification [Fig. 1, ¶ 0066] describes the additional elements, i.e., system, memory, processor, client device, APIs, in the claim at a high-level generality and the combination of computing components merely provide a generic environment in which the claimed method is performed. The claim recites use of a tool to aid users in estimating space and budgeting needs. The particular type of data or information recited being used to perform the judicial exception does not alter the analysis. It is clear from Applicant’s position in this response, the alleged improvements are within the abstract idea being claimed, there are no improvements to in the technology, i.e., computing components, being used to implement the abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Office has alleged that "in real time" is "merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception" under MPEP 2106.05(h). (See, page 15 of the Office Action). Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Office's reliance on MPEP 2106.05(h) is misplaced. A field-of-use limitation merely restricts where or in what context an abstract idea is applied-for example, limiting the abstract idea of budgeting to implementation using "a communication medium" that broadly included the Internet and telephone networks (Intellectual Ventures Iv. Capital One Bank), or limiting the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing information related to the electric power grid (Electric Power Group). These limitations do not change what the system does or how it operates-they merely describe the environment in which the abstract idea is performed. The "in real time" limitation in amended independent claim 1 (Similarly amended independent claims 11 and 21) is fundamentally different. It does not merely describe an environment it imposes a specific functional constraint on how the system must operate.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Here, the Applicant makes conclusory statements in the response which is nothing more an attempt to mischaracterize the findings made in the previous rejection. The Examiner maintains the limitation of “in real time” was identified and properly considered in the last Office Action because the limitation does not add meaningful limits to the claimed invention. At best, it is an attempt to limit the claimed invention a particular technological environment or field of use and Applicant cannot rely upon this feature in this manner to alter the analysis under Step 2A Prong Two. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Amended independent claim 1 (Similarly amended independent claims 11 and 21) recites "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 generate in real time a proposed layout of a floor plan based on the test fit parameters including the usable square footage and the subject property record." This requires the system to coordinate multiple computationally intensive operations-the reverse calculation of usable square footage from CAD layout data, the execution of design rules with stored workstation dimensions, and the generation of CAD-based floor plan layouts-and produce outputs within the timing constraints necessary for real-time interaction.
The specification confirms that "in real time" is not merely a label but describes a specific technical capability. As described in the specification, "a user of the computing device 100 can select using a user-input 106 a generated estimate or a generated floor plan which comprises an initial level of information and request and then may request and receive a more detailed version of that generated estimate or floor plan which can be generated and displayed in real time, such as an initial pricing and 2D layout view and then a 3D layout and/or 3D animation walk through view may be generated and provided." (See, paragraph [0047] of the above-identified patent application).
The specification further explains that "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." (See, paragraph [0047] of the above-identified patent application).
This describes a system that must dynamically generate progressively more detailed CAD outputs-from 2D layouts to 3D floor plans to 3D animation walk-throughs-in response to user interaction, which requires the coordinated real-time execution of the entire computational pipeline. Moreover, in the context of the amended claims, "in real time" is not an isolated modifier-it constrains the entire coordinated pipeline. The system must perform the reverse calculation on CAD layout data, execute design rules with particular stored workstation dimensions, process gearing ratios, and generate CAD-based floor plan layouts all within the timing constraints necessary for the user to receive and interact with the results as they are generated. This is a meaningful computational constraint that dictates how the system's technical components must be architected and coordinated-it is not merely a description of the technological environment in which an abstract idea is performed.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The passage [¶ 0047] from the Specification cited by Applicant has been reproduced below:
For example, generated leasing estimates may be displayed side-by side. In another example, generated construction estimates may be displayed side-by-side. In another example, three different generated estimates for modern or moderate, progressive, and traditional office styles for the same property record 400 may be displayed side-by- side as illustrated in FIG. 9. In yet another example, a combination of generated leasing estimates, construction estimates, and floor plans may be displayed. In a further, a user of the computing device 100 can select using a user-input 106 a generated estimate or a generated floor plan which comprises an initial level of information and request and then may request and receive a more detailed version of that generated estimate or floor plan which can be generated and displayed in real time, such as an initial pricing and 2D layout view and then a 3D layout and/or 3D animation walk through view may be generated and provided. Accordingly, 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. If additional estimates are required, then this exemplary process may start-over, otherwise in step 222 this example of the method may end.
Here, the Specification [¶ 0047] does not provide a finding that supports any improvements related to the functioning of the computer itself or any other computing technology. See also Accenture Glob. Servs.,GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) - ("[T]he complexity of the implementing software or the level of detail in the specification does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method.") Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3dat 1355 (the claimed concurrent visualization of two or more types of information in a time-synchronized display used off-the-shelf conventional computer and display technology) Accordingly, the claim invention does not recite any technical improvements to the generic equipment or machinery be used (such as the tool, system, CAD layouts or their generic functionalities). As such, the claimed invention is merely performing the abstract idea of estimating space and budgeting costs for offices using a computer as a tool for presenting the data or information without any improving the functioning of computers or any other technology. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “This is analogous to the real-time processing found to be a meaningful limitation in the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. In Example 40 (Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data), Claim 1 was found eligible at Step 2A Prong Two because the claim recited a specific improvement in how network data was collected-specifically, limiting collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when initially collected data reflected an abnormal condition, "which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance." Similarly, the real-time constraint in the amended claims is not merely a field-of-use label-it reflects a specific technical requirement that the system must coordinate the execution of CAD data analysis, design rule processing, and layout generation to produce outputs within interactive timing constraints, enabling the user to receive and compare multiple generated estimates and layouts as they are produced.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. As for Training Example 40, the claim as a whole was directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. The Training Example is not applicable because the presently recited claims do not recite a comparable technological solution. The courts have previously held the speed or efficiency increases from generic computers in “real-time” are not enough to confer patent eligibility. See Credit Acceptance, 859 F.3d at 1056-57 (using computers to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to make a claim patent eligible) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant argues “The Office has alleged that "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" and that "the claims merely provide a business outcome for generating real estate estimate and visualizations, rather than a technological solution to a technological problem." (See, pages 16- 17 of the Office Action). Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Office's characterization of the claims as "results-oriented steps for gathering, analyzing, and presenting information" improperly reduces the specific technical operations recited in the amended claims to their highest level of abstraction. Under the 2019 PEG, the proper analysis must consider the claim limitations as an ordered whole, not strip away the technical details to arrive at a generalized description. The Office's characterization could apply to virtually any computer-implemented system that processes data and displays results-which is precisely the type of overbroad abstraction that the 2019 PEG cautions against. The amended claims do not merely "gather, analyze, and present information."
They recite a specific coordinated technical pipeline comprising five distinct technical operations that are interconnected and interdependent: (A) executing programmed instructions to perform a reverse calculation that analyzes a CAD layout of total square footage from the property record to determine usable square footage distinct from total square footage based on architectural constraints-this is a specific computational analysis of a digital CAD data structure, not generic "gathering" of information; (B) executing executable design rules comprising stored data for design dimensions and configurations for different types of workstations, wherein each type of workstation comprises particular stored design dimensions and configurations-these are specific technical data structures with concrete dimensional data, not generic "analyzing" of information; (C) processing gearing ratios defining ratios of usable space to total space for each property record and using the computed usable square footage together with the stored workstation dimensions to determine headcount and numbers and types of office space this is a multi-factor technical computation that integrates the output of the CAD reverse calculation with stored dimensional data; (D) executing CAD design tools to generate in real time a proposed layout of a floor plan based on the test fit parameters including the usable square footage and the subject property record-this is real-time CAD layout generation, not generic "presenting" of information; and (E) transmitting a simultaneous comparison between a plurality of generated estimates for different office layout styles for the same property record-this requires the system to execute the entire pipeline (A) through (D) for multiple office layout styles and present the results simultaneously, which is a coordinated technical operation requiring parallel processing of multiple parameter sets. This is not a "business outcome." A business outcome would be, for example, "determining the best property for a client" or "selecting the most cost-effective office layout." The amended claims do not recite any such business conclusion. Instead, they recite the specific technical operations by which the system processes CAD data, executes stored design rules, and generates coordinated outputs. The distinction is critical: the claims recite how the system technically operates, not what business result it achieves.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. As for the specificity of the data or information being input and processed within the abstract idea, none of the limitations make the claimed invention any less abstract. As for the ordered combination of limitations, the claims merely require the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There are no technical details recited in the claim as the claims merely serve as a tool to address a business challenge rather than operating in a manner that shows improvements to technology. At best, the Applicant is relying upon the type of computer environment which does not add anything meaningful to the claim. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Moreover, the Office's assertion that the claims do not "improve the functioning of computers or any other technology" ignores that the claims recite a specific improvement in the technology of CAD-based real estate estimation and visualization. As described in the specification, "the computing device 100 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 304, 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." (See, paragraph [0037] of the above-identified patent application). This describes a specific technical improvement: the ability to computationally analyze CAD layout data to determine usable square footage, use that computed value together with stored workstation dimensions and style-specific design rules to generate real-time CAD layouts, and provide simultaneous multi-style comparison capabilities that did not exist in prior systems and that are inherently tied to the computing technology.
The Office's reliance on the specification's background section (paragraph [0003]) to characterize the claims as directed to a business problem is also misplaced. While paragraph [0003] describes the general commercial context, the claims as amended recite and are directed to the specific technical solution-not the business problem. The fact that a technical solution has commercial applications does not render it abstract.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Here, Applicant argues the computational analysis did not exist in prior art systems, but even assuming that is true, it does not avoid the problem of abstractness." Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1263; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That some of these steps were not previously employed in this art is not enough—standing alone—to confer patent eligibility upon the claims....")
The passages being relied upon by Applicant from the Specification [¶ 0037] has been reproduced here:
[0037] In this example, the exemplary set of test fit parameters 300(2) also include as an additional parameter the usable square footage 312 for reverse calculations which includes parameters for the number of offices 321, the number of workstations 323, and the number of hybrid workstations 325 each based on the usable square footage for reverse calculations 312, although other types and/or numbers of other parameters related to usable square footage can be used. With the usable square footage 312, the computing device 100 can execute programmed instructions for reverse calculations to determine, for example, headcount 302(2) including number of offices 320, number of work stations 322, and number of hybrid or other spaces 324 as well as office sizes 308, although other types of test fit parameters can be determined in reverse. The computing device 100 may receive or automatically determine the usable square footage 312 from an analysis of a layout of the total square footage from the property record 400. For example, older properties may have larger total square footage than usable square footage because of their architectural design which can impact the generated estimates and layout. Accordingly, with examples of this technology the computing device 100 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 304, 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. Further, as shown in FIG. 8 with the usable square footage and selected office style, the generated estimate calculates and provides a comprehensive output of the selected design(s) for the application for the property by way of example.
The Specification confirms that the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea that merely seeks to use computers as a tool, not on an improvement in computer capabilities. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the system performs a computational analysis that combines client-selected test fit parameters with property-record data to automatically produce space, cost, and layout outputs. It uses rules tied to office style, headcount, usable square footage, and property constraints to generate leasing and construction estimates. It can also reverse-calculate usable square footage from a CAD layout and adjust the proposed plan, which describes the system and methods in purely functional terms. The specification does not support a finding that the claims are directed to a technological improvement in computer functionality. As such, the Examiner asserts the system and method claims that use the client device to perform the computational analysis are directed to the use of generic technology in a well-known environment. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “As the Federal Circuit recognized in McRO, claims that recite specific technical rules to automate a previously manual process are not abstract merely because the automated process has commercial value. The McRO decision discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) is instructive. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held that the incorporation of particular claimed rules in computer animation "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The McRO court noted that the claims described "a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome."
“Similarly, the amended claims recite specific rules (executable design rules with particular stored design dimensions and configurations for each workstation type) that are incorporated into a specific technological process (analyzing CAD data via reverse calculations, processing gearing ratios, generating real-time CAD layouts for simultaneous multi-style comparison) to improve the existing technological process of real estate estimation and visualization.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In McRO, the claims were eligible at step one because they used a "combined order of specific rules" to achieve "an improved technological result." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims in McRO were considered in light of the Specification which confirmed they were directed to an actual technological improvement. As for the Applicant’s Specification [¶ 0037] does not support a finding that the claims are directed to a technological improvement in computer functionality. The claimed features describe the use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea and do not recite a comparable technological solution. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Example 42 (Medical Record Updates) from the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples further supports eligibility. In Example 42, Claim 1 was found eligible at Step 2A Prong Two because the combination of additional elements recited "a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format." Similarly, the amended claims recite a specific improvement: the coordinated system that performs reverse calculations on CAD layout data, executes design rules with particular stored dimensional data, generates real-time CAD floor plans, and provides simultaneous comparison of multiple generated estimates for different office layout styles for the same property record. The specification confirms that "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." (See, paragraph [0047] of the above-identified patent application).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, Example 42 is not applicable. The cited example is directed to a specific technological improvement, whereas the present claims are directed to applying an abstract idea with generic computing components. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Even assuming arguendo that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the ordered combination of elements provides an inventive concept under Step 2B. The Office has alleged that "the additional element(s) of: 'a system', 'memory comprising programmed instructions stored thereon', 'one or more processors', 'from a client device', 'a CAD layout'... amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B." (See, page 4 of the Office Action). Applicant submits that the Office has improperly analyzed each element in isolation. The Office has alleged that "generate... a proposed layout of a floor plan" and "transmit... a comparison" are "insignificant extra-solution activity" that is "well-known, routine, and/or conventional" citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, Alice, Versata, and Ultramercial. (See, page 4 of the Office Action).”
“However, the amended claims now recite transmitting "a simultaneous comparison between a plurality of generated estimates for different ones of the plurality of overall office layout styles for the same property record" this is not generic data transmission but a specific technical output requiring coordinated parallel processing of multiple parameter sets through the entire pipeline.”
“The specific ordered combination in claim 1 as amended includes: (A) executing programmed instructions to perform a reverse calculation that analyzes a CAD layout of total square footage to determine usable square footage distinct from total square footage based on architectural constraints -- (B) executing executable design rules comprising stored data for design dimensions and configurations for different types of workstations, wherein each type of workstation comprises particular stored design dimensions and configurations, to generate cost estimates and determine headcount and office space types based on the computed usable square footage and gearing ratios -- (C) executing CAD design tools to generate in real time a proposed floor plan layout -- (D)” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Whether viewing the claim limitations individually or as an ordered combination, the claims do not add an inventive concept that would be "sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. The presentation of data even in particular formatted manner and as a result of a standard operation such as receiving user input cannot support the claim as having either a practical application or an inventive concept. These conclusory allegations with respect to the newly added transmitting step of the claims are insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Under BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Office must do more than declare each element conventional in isolation. Even assuming arguendo that individual elements were known, the Office has not identified any evidence that the ordered combination was well- understood, routine, or conventional at the time of filing.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, the Applicant has not explained how the claims parallel the factual patterns discussed in the BASCOM court decision. These are merely conclusory allegations that the prior art lacked elements of the asserted claims which is insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That some of the eleven steps were not previously employed in this art is not enough—standing alone—to confer patent eligibility upon the claims at issue."). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights