DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 26, 29, and 36 have been amended in the response filed December 23, 2025.
Claims 1-2 and 21-38 are pending.
Claims 1-2 and 21-38 are rejected.
Detailed rejections begin on page 3.
Response to Arguments begins on page 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The steps for determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be found in the MPEP § 2106.03-2106.05.
Under Step 1, the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-2 and 21-28, is directed to a process. Additionally, the apparatus, as claimed in claims 29-38, is directed to a machine.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of requesting a price quote. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
generates objective requirements and defines supplier capabilities
interrogates in order to generate a list of capabilities of one or more suppliers that are compared against the objective requirements generated;
receiving from a price requestor, a request for price (RFP) associated with computer-aided-design (CAD) model data representing a structure;
identifying at least a supply parameter associated with the CAD model data by:
parsing the CAD model data to identify discrete shapes in a CAD model of the CAD model data;
determining one or more geometric attributes of each identified discrete shape of the CAD model; and
extracting, from the one or more geometric attributes, one or more fabrication parameters, wherein the one or more fabrication parameters define manufacturability requirements for the structure;
comparing the at least a supply parameter to one or more capabilities of a supplier;
determining whether the one or more capabilities satisfies the at least a supply parameter based on the comparison;
generating, as a function of the comparison, a filtered supplier list, wherein the filtered supplier list comprises a plurality of suppliers, wherein the plurality of suppliers is capable of fabricating the structure associated with the RFP; and
displaying a price associated with each supplier of the plurality of suppliers of the filtered supplier list.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in the guidance. When considering MPEP §2106.04(a), the claims recite an abstract idea. For example, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of requesting a price quote, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined in the MPEP as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection II. In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because generates objective requirements; defines supplier capabilities to generate a list of capabilities of one or more suppliers that are compared against the objective requirements generated; receiving request for price (RFP) associated with computer-aided-design (CAD) model data representing a structure; identifying at least a supply parameter associated with the CAD model data; comparing the at least a supply parameter to one or more capabilities of a supplier; determining whether the one or more capabilities satisfies the at least a supply parameter based on the comparison; generating, as a function of the comparison, a filtered supplier list, wherein the filtered supplier list comprises a plurality of suppliers, wherein the plurality of suppliers is capable of fabricating the structure associated with the RFP; and displaying a price associated with each supplier of the plurality of suppliers of the filtered supplier list is a sales activity. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The recited limitations of representative claim 1 also recite an abstract idea because they are considered to be mental processes. As described in the MPEP, mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection III. In this case, generates objective requirements and defines supplier capabilities; interrogates in order to generate a list of capabilities of one or more suppliers that are compared against the objective requirements generated; identifying at least a supply parameter associated with the CAD model data by: parsing the CAD model data to identify discrete shapes in a CAD model of the CAD model data; determining one or more geometric attributes of each identified discrete shape of the CAD model; and extracting, from the one or more geometric attributes, one or more fabrication parameters, wherein the one or more fabrication parameters define manufacturability requirements for the structure; comparing the at least a supply parameter to one or more capabilities of a supplier; determining whether the one or more capabilities satisfies the at least a supply parameter based on the comparison; generating, as a function of the comparison, a filtered supplier list, wherein the filtered supplier list comprises a plurality of suppliers, wherein the plurality of suppliers is capable of fabricating the structure associated with the RFP; and displaying a price associated with each supplier of the plurality of suppliers of the filtered supplier list are types of judgement. Additionally, receiving from a price requestor, a request for price (RFP) associated with computer-aided-design (CAD) model data representing a structure are types of observation. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. See MPEP §2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as a computing system in communication with at least one client device across a network; providing automated costing software to a computing system to transform at least part of the computing system into an electronic pricing machine, wherein the automated pricing software includes an interrogation engine and an objective capabilities engine comprising a supplier capability defining module which further comprises a subprogram that interrogates a supplier database; a capability comparison module; and an electronic request for price (RFP).
Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., requesting a price quote) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP §§2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. As such, representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). See MPEP §2106.05.
Here, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components ... ‘ad[d] nothing ... that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Also see MPEP §2106.05(f). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 21-28 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 24-26 and 28 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1. Also, claims 21-23 and 27 merely provide further embellishments of the abstract limitations recited in independent claim 1.
Additionally, it is noted that claims 2, 21-23, and 25-28 do not include further additional elements not previously recited. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Furthermore, it is noted that claim 24 includes further additional elements of the automated pricing software further comprises a pricing engine. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, dependent claims 2 and 21-28 are also ineligible.
Lastly, the analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Although literally invoking a machine, claims 29-38 remain only broadly and generally defined, with the claimed functionality paralleling that of claims 1-2 and 21-28. It is noted that claim 29 includes further additional elements of an apparatus, the apparatus comprising: at least a processor; and a memory, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor to perform. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. As such, claims 29-38 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gross.
Claim 1:
Gross discloses:
A method performed by a computing system in communication with at least one client device across a network {Gross: fig 7; [0065] designer's computer and the manufacturer's computer are configured to communicate with a design system 208 via network connections 210; [0066] a design process 300 using an example embodiment of the design system}, the method comprising:
providing automated costing software to a computing system to transform at least part of the computing system into an electronic pricing machine {Gross: fig 9 represents design system 208; [0032] the manufacturer, or other entity, provides the design system with software drivers that include both the capabilities of the new tools, and supplies the design system database with the costs and lead times associated with using the new tools},
wherein the automated pricing software includes an interrogation engine which generates objective requirements and an objective capabilities engine comprising a supplier capability defining module which defines supplier capabilities which further comprises a subprogram that interrogates a supplier database in order to generate a list of capabilities of one or more suppliers that are compared by a capability comparison module against the objective requirements generated by the interrogation engine {Gross: fig 9, feature identification engine 408 (i.e., interrogation engine), process planning engine 410 (i.e., objective capabilities engine), materials cost database 418; [0031] design system includes a database to which manufacturers submit manufacturing information. As used herein, "manufacturing information" includes the cost for use of raw materials; [0032] the manufacturer, or other entity, provides the design system with software drivers that include both the capabilities of the new tools, and supplies the design system database with the costs and lead times associated with using the new tools; [0033] design system cross-references the features and functions of the component with the available manufacturing functionalities, and determines which manufacturing processes are usable to manufacture the component; [0036] provides the designer with an easy way to compare the capabilities of multiple manufacturers. A list of quotations received from different manufacturers can include manufacturing cost; [0074] a process planning engine 410 that is configured to determine a sequence of manufacturing steps used to create the manufacturable features. The process capabilities database 412 includes manufacturing capability data; [0077] calculate a component cost based on data generated by the feature identification engine 408.};
receiving, using the network and from a price requestor, an electronic request for price (RFP) associated with computer-aided-design (CAD) model data representing a structure {Gross: [0010] receiving, from a designer (i.e., price requestor) via an electronic network, design information (i.e., RFP) that defines a component; [0066] a designer makes a component design (i.e., structure) using the functionality of a CAD program. The design system monitors the progress of the component design, and when the component design is sufficiently defined, produces generated manufacturing information based on the component design. The manufacturing information includes a cost estimate and a lead time estimate};
identifying, using the interrogation engine, at least a supply parameter associated with the CAD model data by {Gross: [0072] feature identification engine 408 (i.e., interrogation engine) is additionally or alternatively configured to receive commands from the designer to manually define manufacturable features; [0033] the design system is optionally configured to abstract the functionality of the manufacturers’ machines, thereby allowing the available functionalities to be applied to the component designs that the designer produces using the CAD program; [0058] component pane 108, which is configured to provide the designer with information relating to a selected component that forms a part of the assembly. The designer uses the component pane 108 to adjust a property of a selected component, such as a dimension, a dimensional tolerance, or a material type. Data provided by the designer to the component pane 108 is used to update the definition of the design information in the CAD program.}:
parsing the CAD model data to identify discrete shapes in a CAD model of the CAD model data {Gross: [0006] cost factors are extracted from the design information; [0072] feature identification engine 408 is configured to automatically identify manufacturable features as they are defined in the CAD program 402; [0073] feature identification engine 408 operates differently for different manufacturing processes. For example, for components comprising sheet metal, typical features include circles, squares, rectangles, ovals (i.e., discrete shapes); [0005] extracting cost factors from the design data, such as the size and shape of the parts that comprise the object.};
determining one or more geometric attributes of each identified discrete shape of the CAD model {Gross: [0072] feature identification engine 408 is configured to automatically identify manufacturable features as they are defined in the CAD program 402; [0073] feature identification engine 408 operates differently for different manufacturing processes. For example, for components comprising sheet metal, typical features include circles, squares, rectangles, ovals (i.e., discrete shapes); [0071] CAD information used to define the components designed using the CAD program 402 includes geometric data}; and
extracting, from the one or more geometric attributes, one or more fabrication parameters, wherein the one or more fabrication parameters define manufacturability requirements for the structure {Gross: [0005] extracting cost factors from the design data, such as the size and shape of the parts that comprise the object; [0072] a manufacturable feature represents a manufacturing process, such as a drilled hole, a punched square, a bend, a milled pocket, a weld, or a surface treatment. The feature identification engine 408 is configured to automatically identify manufacturable features as they are defined in the CAD program 402. For example, manufacturable features are identified by an algorithm that analyzes the mathematical representation of a component surface or group of surfaces. Manufacturable features are also identified by using features that are predefined by the CAD program 402. The feature identification engine 408 is additionally or alternatively configured to receive commands from the designer to manually define manufacturable features; [0071] CAD information used to define the components designed using the CAD program 402 includes dimensional data};
comparing the at least a supply parameter to one or more capabilities of a supplier {Gross: [0033] The design system cross-references the features and functions of the component with the available manufacturing functionalities};
determining whether the one or more capabilities satisfies the at least a supply parameter based on the comparison {Gross: [0033] The design system cross-references the features and functions of the component with the available manufacturing functionalities, and determines which manufacturing processes are usable to manufacture the component. The design system is optionally configured to automatically select preferred manufacturing tools};
generating, as a function of the comparison, a filtered supplier list, wherein the filtered supplier list comprises a plurality of suppliers, wherein the plurality of suppliers is capable of fabricating the structure associated with the electronic RFP {Gross: [0057] assembly cost comparison provides a list of manufacturers and a cost estimate for the listed manufacturers to make a selected component. Where data from a large number of manufacturers is presented, the graphical comparisons are optionally configured to sort the cost and lead time data according to criteria specified by the designer. The designer is also optionally able to filter out manufacturers that do not meet certain criteria, such as maximum lead times or maximum unit costs.}; and
displaying a price associated with each supplier of the plurality of suppliers of the filtered supplier list {Gross: fig 4; [0036] design system advantageously provides the designer with an easy way to compare the capabilities of multiple manufacturers. Manufacturing information is provided in the form of a list of quotations received from different manufacturers, including manufacturing cost; [0057] manufacturer pane 106 advantageously provides designer with a quick way to compare the relative services offered by the available manufacturers}.
Claim 2:
Gross discloses the method of claim 1. Gross further discloses:
wherein determining whether the one or more capabilities satisfies the at least a supply parameter comprises running, by the electronic pricing machine, an objective capabilities engine to automatically compare the at least a supply parameter to the one or more capabilities of the supplier {Gross: [0032] software drivers include the capabilities of the new tools and supplies the design system database with the costs; [0033] design system cross-references the features and functions of the component with available manufacturing functionalities, and determines which manufacturing processes are usable to manufacture the component. Design system is optionally configured to automatically select preferred manufacturing tools; [0077] cost estimation engine 416 configured to calculate a component cost}.
Claim 21:
Gross discloses the method of claim 1. Gross further discloses:
wherein the one or more capabilities comprises fabrication capabilities {Gross: [0043] the design system is optionally configured to provide pricing comparisons for different fabrication techniques, such as machining compared to molding, stamping, etching or casting}.
Claim 22:
Gross discloses the method of claim 1. Gross further discloses:
wherein the one or more capabilities comprises finishing capabilities {Gross: [0059] component properties pane 172 is used to adjust the finish of the selected component. Selecting a particular finish causes the component design to be updated in the CAD program}.
Claim 23:
Gross discloses the method of claim 1. Gross further discloses:
wherein the one or more capabilities comprises material constraints {Gross: [0058] designer uses the component pane 108 to adjust a property of a selected component, such as a material type; [0060] wherein the component properties pane 172 is used to select the material from which the component is manufactured, the data window 174 displays physical, structural and other data for available materials.}.
Claim 24:
Gross discloses the method of claim 1. Gross further discloses:
the automated pricing software further comprises a pricing engine {Gross: fig 9, cost estimation engine 416; [0077] cost estimation engine 416 that is configured to calculate a component cost}; and
the method further comprises generating, using the pricing engine, the price associated with each supplier of the plurality of suppliers of the filtered supplier list {Gross: [0077] a cost estimation engine 416 that is configured to calculate a component cost based on data generated by the process planning engine 410, the machine programming engine 414, and the feature identification engine 408. The cost estimation engine 416 also relies upon manufacturing information provided via the user interface 206; [0057] The assembly cost comparison 130 provides a list of manufacturers and a cost estimate for the listed manufacturers to make a selected component. The designer is also optionally able to filter out manufacturers that do not meet certain criteria, such as maximum lead times or maximum unit costs}.
Claim 25:
Gross discloses the method of claim 24. Gross further discloses:
wherein generating the price associated with each supplier comprises:
receiving one or more material prices from the supplier database {Gross: [0031] The design system includes a database to which manufacturers submit manufacturing information. As used herein, "manufacturing information" includes the cost for use of raw materials.}; and
calculating the price associated with each supplier as a function of the one or more material prices {Gross: [0077] The cost estimation engine 416 also relies upon manufacturing information provided via the user interface 206. Such information includes information relating to the cost of raw materials ("material cost information") stored in database 418}.
Claim 26:
Gross discloses the method of claim 1. Gross further discloses:
the automated pricing software further comprises an interrogation engine {Gross: fig 9, feature identification engine 408; [0077] calculate a component cost based on data generated by the feature identification engine 408.}; and
identifying the at least a supply parameter associated with the CAD model data comprises interrogating, using the interrogation engine, the CAD model data to determine the at least a supply parameter {Gross: [0072] a feature identification engine 408 that is configured to identify individual manufacturable features of a component defined using the CAD program 402; [0073] even where multiple manufacturers are capable of manufacturing a particular feature using the same manufacturing process, the individual manufacturers will still have different quality capabilities, such as different capabilities for meeting a particular dimensional tolerance. Therefore, in an example embodiment the feature identification engine 408 operates recursively, identifying component features separately for individual manufacturers.}.
Claim 27:
Gross discloses the method of claim 26. Gross further discloses:
wherein the at least a supply parameter comprises a list of objective requirements based on the CAD model data {Gross: [0033] the design system is optionally configured to abstract the functionality of the manufacturers' machines, thereby allowing the available functionalities to be applied to the component designs that the designer produces using the CAD program; [0058] component pane 108, which is configured to provide the designer with information relating to a selected component that forms a part of the assembly. The designer uses the component pane 108 to adjust a property of a selected component, such as a dimension, a dimensional tolerance, or a material type (i.e., objective requirements)}.
Claim 28:
Gross discloses the method of claim 26. Gross further discloses:
wherein interrogating the CAD model data, comprises:
identifying a plurality of separate elements of a CAD model of the CAD model data {Gross: [0072] a feature identification engine 408 that is configured to identify individual manufacturable features of a component defined using the CAD program 402}; and
analyzing the plurality of separate elements of the CAD model to determine one or more manufacturing requirements for a product based on the CAD model {Gross: [0073] even where multiple manufacturers are capable of manufacturing a particular feature using the same manufacturing process, the individual manufacturers will still have different quality capabilities, such as different capabilities for meeting a particular dimensional tolerance. Therefore, in an example embodiment the feature identification engine 408 operates recursively, identifying component features separately for individual manufacturers; [0074] determine a sequence of manufacturing steps used to create the manufacturable features identified by the feature identification engine 408.}.
Regarding claims 29-38, claims 29-38 are directed to an apparatus. Claims 29-38 recite limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1-2 and 21-28, which are directed towards a method. Therefore, claims 29-38 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1-2 and 21-38, respectively.
It is noted that claim 29 includes additional elements of:
An apparatus for generating a supplier list, the apparatus comprising:
at least a processor; and
a memory, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor to perform.
Gross discloses:
An apparatus for generating a supplier list {Gross: fig 7, designer computer 204; [0057] provides a list of manufacturers and a cost estimate for the listed manufacturers to make a selected component.}, the apparatus comprising:
at least a processor {Gross: [0065] The system 200 includes a designer's computer}; and
a memory, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor to {Gross: [0069] design system 208 is configured to interface with a CAD program 402 used by a designer to define component designs. The CAD program 402 is interfaced with the design system 208 using a plug-in architecture, although other integration techniques are used in other embodiments, such as by use of dynamic links to between the respective software modules and/or databases of the CAD program 402 and the design system.}.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments render the claim objections moot. Therefore, the claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to pages 8-10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the claims do not recite mental processes because “[s]imilar to Enfish, the amended claim is directed to specific computer-implemented processing of structured data which is parsing CAD model geometry and deriving manufacturability parameters using an interrogation engine.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Enfish, the claims were eligible because the court determined that the claims were directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court noted that “the plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” Id. The claimed improvement was further supported in the specification which noted a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. Id. at 1337. Therefore, in Enfish, the claims were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.
Here, the claims do not focus on the improvement to computer functionality itself. Rather, the claims use the computer “in its ordinary capacity” to perform the mental tasks of identifying at least a supply parameter by parsing CAD model data to identifying discrete shapes (e.g., circles, squares, ovals), determining geometric attributes, and extracting fabrication parameters (e.g., dimensions) from CAD model data. Such steps are not an improvement to computer functionality because they are not designed to technologically improve how the claimed technology operates. Rather, the steps are merely using computer elements to implement the mental task of identifying a supply parameter so that it can be matched with a capable supplier, which is an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
With respect to page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the claim cannot be fairly characterized as reciting a method of organizing human activity” because “[the amended claim] limitations are directed to computer-implemented analysis of machine-readable CAD geometry and automated derivation of engineering constraints.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in the MPEP at § 2106.04(a), key concepts were extracted and synthesized in order to identify groupings of abstract ideas. One of those groupings was “certain methods of organizing human activity,” which is defined to include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” which can include certain activity between a person and a computer.
The claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity because the claim recites generates objective requirements; defines supplier capabilities to generate a list of capabilities of one or more suppliers that are compared against the objective requirements generated; receiving request for price (RFP) associated with computer-aided-design (CAD) model data representing a structure; identifying at least a supply parameter associated with the CAD model data; comparing the at least a supply parameter to one or more capabilities of a supplier; determining whether the one or more capabilities satisfies the at least a supply parameter based on the comparison; generating, as a function of the comparison, a filtered supplier list, wherein the filtered supplier list comprises a plurality of suppliers, wherein the plurality of suppliers is capable of fabricating the structure associated with the RFP; and displaying a price associated with each supplier of the plurality of suppliers of the filtered supplier list. These claim features are sales activities. “Sales activities” is a broad phrase that encompasses activities that are related to sales, which includes any steps taken to move customers through a sales process. Generating a filtered list of suppliers that are capable of fabricating a structure associated with a request for price and displaying the price associated with each supplier is moving a customer through a sales process because it is providing a potential buyer with a price quote associated with each supplier. Even if the amended claim limitations alone are not directed to a sales activity, which the Examiner does not concede, the claim as a whole is directed to the sales activity of finding a capable supplier. Therefore, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity because the claim recites a sales activity.
With respect to pages 10-11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “[the amended claim] limitations integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application by improving computer-aided manufacturing because they require the computing system to programmatically parse structured CAD model data, extract geometric attributes, and derive manufacturability parameters that control subsequent machine actions, thereby improving computer-aided manufacturing analysis,” citing Enfish and McRO for alleged similarities. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP at §§ 2106.04(d)1 and 2106.05(a) provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner . . . the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraphs [0003] and [0008] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward solving abstract business problems such as allowing each of any one or more designers participating in an automated marketplace to view a list of suppliers that are willing to fabricate a particular design such that the designers can quickly and easily identify suppliers that are not only capable of fabricating particular designs but also willing to do so. Although the claims include computer technology, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish and McRO.
Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” but are directed to improving the commercial and mental task of finding a supplier. The claimed process is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while employing generic computer components to improve how a capable supplier is found, e.g. commercial and mental process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements.
With respect to pages 11-13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “[s]imilar to BASCOM, even if individual components such as CAD data access or database querying were known in isolation, the claimed invention, without limitation, may include the non-generic and non-conventional combination of the additional elements of using CAD-derived geometric attributes to generate manufacturability parameters that directly govern supplier filtering and pricing. Therefore, the amended claims, viewed as a whole, amount to significantly more than the purported abstract idea and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit vacated a judgment of ineligibility because the district court failed to properly perform the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework (Step 2B of the USPTO’s SME guidance) when analyzing a claimed system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network. The BASCOM court agreed that the additional elements were generic computer, network, and Internet components that did not amount to significantly more when considered individually, but explained that the district court erred by failing to recognize that when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user (note that the term “inventive concept” is often used by the courts to describe additional element(s) that amount to significantly more than a judicial exception). BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of non-conventional or non-routine arrangement of computer elements or other technology, when additional elements are considered individually and in combination. Reflected in paragraphs [0003] and [0008]-[0010] of Applicant’s specification, the invention described is directed toward solving abstract problems such as reducing time, effort, and money in identifying suppliers. Although the claims include computer technology, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in BASCOM.
In BASCOM, the courts found “the patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content. As explained earlier, prior art filters were either susceptible to hacking and dependent on local hardware and software, or confined to an inflexible onesize-fits-all scheme.” Id. Unlike BASCOM, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement on the arrangement of elements or explain an ordered combination of limitations above and beyond the abstract idea. The instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” but are directed to improving the commercial and mental tasks identifying suppliers. The claimed process is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field via the arrangement of the components, as the claimed process in question is not, for example, improving the arrangement of components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while employing generic processor and/or computer components to reduce time, effort, and money spent on identifying suppliers, e.g. mental and commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite non-conventional and non-routine arrangement of systems. Therefore, the rejection is maintained in this aspect.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to pages 13-15 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Applicant submits that at least the arrangement of ‘identifying, using the interrogation engine, at least a supply parameter associated with the CAD model data by parsing the CAD model data to identify discrete shapes in a CAD model of the CAD model data, determining one or more geometric attributes of each identified discrete shape of the CAD model, and extracting, from the one or more geometric attributes, one or more fabrication parameters, wherein the one or more fabrication parameters define manufacturability requirements for the structure,’ as now recited in independent claim 1, is not taught, or even suggested or motivated, by Gross.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Gross discloses a feature identification engine (i.e., interrogation engine) that can identify properties of a given component for manufacture based on the CAD program (Gross: [0058], [0072]). The feature identification engine can extract cost factors from the design data through identifying features such as circles, squares, rectangles, ovals, etc. (Gross: [0006], [0072], [0073]). The feature identification engine can also identify geometric and dimensional data from the CAD program (Gross: [0072], [0073]). Using this data, the feature identification engine can extract manufacturable features such as drilled holes, punched squares, weld, etc. based on the CAD surface data of the component (Gross: [0072]). Therefore, Gross does disclose the cited claim limitations, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-5820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 11am-7pm EST.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on (571) 272-6764. 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.
/KATHERINE A BARLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 1/29/2026