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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 8/3/2026. Claims 1-2, 21-38 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1 and 29 have been amended. Claims 3-20 have been cancelled.
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;
determining that a discrete shape represented by the CAD model data, representing the structure, is representative of a uniform thickness sheet metal part by verifying that the CAD model comprises at least one solid body, all vertexes of faces of the solid body perpendicular to a base plane equal a thickness value, no vertex edge length is less than the thickness value, and a perimeter of a top face of the solid body equals a perimeter of a bottom face of the solid body;
[…] assigning a sheet metal manufacturing constraint to the CAD model data, representing the structure, based on determining that the discrete shape is representative of the uniform thickness sheet metal part; 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
transmitting, to the price requestor for display, unit pricing retrieved from […] for each supplier of the filtered supplier list calculated in accordance with the assigned sheet metal manufacturing constraint.
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 the limitations above are 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, the limitations above 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); automatically assigning […].
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.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1 and 29 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101, as set forth above. All dependent claims are also free of prior art by virtue of dependency, but remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Taking amended claim 1 as a representative claim, the claims as amended are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 now recites the additional claimed features of:
determining that a discrete shape represented by the CAD model data, representing the structure, is representative of a uniform thickness sheet metal part by verifying that the CAD model comprises at least one solid body, all vertexes of faces of the solid body perpendicular to a base plane equal a thickness value, no vertex edge length is less than the thickness value, and a perimeter of a top face of the solid body equals a perimeter of a bottom face of the solid body;
automatically assigning a sheet metal manufacturing constraint to the CAD model data, representing the structure, based on determining that the discrete shape is representative of the uniform thickness sheet metal part; and
The closest prior art was found to be as follows:
In addition to the previously cited prior art the following references are determined to be closest prior art:
Jacobs (US 10929904) discloses automated or semi-automated price quotes for fabricating a structure that has been modeled using computer modeling (see abstract). The automatic price determination uses information such as sheet-metal fabrication content, to include thickness of the sheet material, in order to determine the price (Col. 6 lines 15-60). Jacob’s goes on to describe (Col. 14 lines 15-60) (57) As will become apparent from reading the following description of this detailed embodiment, the example described below includes a price-quote system and customer portal that allows a customer (i.e., a user) of a sheet-metal fabricator to get an instant firm fabrication-price quote for fabricating one or more instantiations of a structure represented in a computer model that is designed in computer-modeling software, here SOLIDWORKS software. As noted above, the firm fabrication-price quote is not simply an estimate, but rather a firm quote on which a user can place a fabrication order and that the fabricator will honor baring extenuating circumstances. In this illustrative example, the price-quoting software includes a price-quoting application that resides on a user computer as a plugin to the SOLIDWORKS software and obtains user-entered form data (i.e., non-extracted pricing data) and extracts pricing data from the computer-modeling software on the user computer to create the extracted pricing data. Examples of pricing data that can be extracted include but are not limited to, material thickness, part perimeter, flat size, formed size, tap hole types, tap hole count, countersink hole types, countersink hole count, open loops, weld types, weld length, bend angle, bend length, bend radius(ii), hole diameters, hole depths, embosses, silkscreen cuts, and hardware, among others. In this example, the user provides data pertaining to the material, finish, and quantity for a particular structure or for multiple differing structures, such as differing parts. Once the user has selected the desired options for each part, in this example, that part can be added to a collection of saved parts. Upon successfully creating a full list of parts, in this example the user then selects a soft-button to generate an instant firm fabrication-price quote and spawn an email to the user that includes, in this particular instantiation, a portable document format (PDF) file. In this example, the PDF file includes a detailed list of parts the user has chosen for a quotation and includes a picture of each part. In this particular embodiment, the PDF quote file and computer model is also uploaded to a system file-transfer-protocol (FTP) server located remotely relative to the user computer. As such, if the customer decides to place an order, it can be processed without requiring any additional information from the customer other than a purchase order (PO) number, which is included in the PDF file. However, the reference does not disclose determining that a discrete shape represented by the CAD model data, representing the structure, is representative of a uniform thickness sheet metal part by verifying that the CAD model comprises at least one solid body, all vertexes of faces of the solid body perpendicular to a base plane equal a thickness value, no vertex edge length is less than the thickness value, and a perimeter of a top face of the solid body equals a perimeter of a bottom face of the solid body; automatically assigning a sheet metal manufacturing constraint to the CAD model data, representing the structure, based on determining that the discrete shape is representative of the uniform thickness sheet metal part, as required by the claimed invention.
“Cost estimation of automotive sheet metal components using knowledge-based engineering and case-based reasoning” discloses an automated request process for getting vendor estimates. An example of the process is shown in Figure 1-3. Forming features of the requested manufactured product are considered to provide more accurate estimations and an optimized process plan is created using machine learning- “On the conceptual level, data and knowledge models are integrated into the design and process planning of sheet metal components [14]. The design data model consists of a classification of forming features; the design knowledge model comprises rules to determine forming feature attributes and the associated forming operations. Process planning consists of the manufacturing resource, processes and process plan data model; the knowledge model contains rules to determine the process plan. In both cases, rules are stored in knowledge frames and can be arranged hierarchically. Research has been carried out to determine a process plan for components with multi stage forming processes [15], progressive dies [13, 16] and non-axisymmetric deep drawing components with elliptical shape [17]” (see page 2). Further on page 4, the sheet metal considerations are “Accuracy of the estimated values depends upon the input data. Hence, it is necessary to identify important attributes which are going to influence the estimated values and are required for the downstream processes. Based on [12, 14, 22], typical sheet metal forming features and operations can be hierarchically classified as illustrated in Fig. 3. Further, it is necessary to have a mapping between features and operations like one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-one [13]. One of the main forming features is draw, and its attributes are diameter, height, radius, orientation, and tolerance. For a feature, it is necessary to store relations to other features which will assist during the determination of a process plan. This draw feature forms the primary feature and can be manufactured using (multiple) drawing operations. This classification is further enhanced by including process plan and manufacturing resources - tools, press and workpiece transfer mechanism. Since tool cost is a major contributor, it is necessary to classify (transfer) tools in detail. This will assist to identify tool components required and their associated cost.” However, the reference does not disclose determining that a discrete shape represented by the CAD model data, representing the structure, is representative of a uniform thickness sheet metal part by verifying that the CAD model comprises at least one solid body, all vertexes of faces of the solid body perpendicular to a base plane equal a thickness value, no vertex edge length is less than the thickness value, and a perimeter of a top face of the solid body equals a perimeter of a bottom face of the solid body; automatically assigning a sheet metal manufacturing constraint to the CAD model data, representing the structure, based on determining that the discrete shape is representative of the uniform thickness sheet metal part, as required by the claimed invention.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 (and parallel claim 29) in combination that overcome the prior art are:
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 102/103, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn in light of the claim amendments. Reasons are set forth in the discussion of subject matter free of prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 101 prong 1, the examiner maintains the claim limitations as shown above recite an abstract idea that is both a mental process and method of organizing human activity. The amended language merely further limits the abstract idea describing the shape representing and the manner in which the constraints to the sheet metal manufacturing criteria are characterized.
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 101 prong 2, as stated above, the amended language merely further defines the abstract idea. It is not improving the technology itself, but at most improving the inputs to the computer model which improves the output and thereby improves the abstract idea, unlike the cases of McRO, and Enfish. The examiner has not characterized the limitations as high level post solution activity, but rather part of the abstract idea. While the limitations further described the conditions of the manufacturing data, there is no active manufacturing occurring in the claims and there the examiner argues that industrial workflow would still be part of the abstract idea. The concepts, such as the pricing search re-framed so that the geometry determination automatically conditions and restricts the database queries and supplier capability match to sheet metal fabrication constraints is merely applying the abstract idea using the additional element of the automated process and database. This is not a solution to a problem rooted in technology. As such, the claims remain rejected under step 2A prong 2.
With respect to Step 2B, the examiner has not asserted that the claim limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the remarks directed to these assertions are determined to be moot. The limitations has been considered individually and as a whole and are still determined to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (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 at (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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 10/2/2026
Prosecution Insights