DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The remarks filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-20, and 36 are pending.
Response to Amendment
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection has been maintained.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection has been maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed January 27, 2026 has been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Priority
The present application claims priority to Provisional Application 63/242,871, filed on September 10, 2021.
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 1-5, 7, 9-20, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-5, 7, 9-20, and 36 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
The abstract idea recited in claim 1 is
displaying the wind loading requirement level for one or more fenestrations of the building and a wind loading rating of a replacement fenestration; and
determine a geolocation of a building;
receive an input from a system user regarding the building and fenestration locations therein;
determine a wind loading requirement level for one or more fenestrations of the building based on the input from the system user and the geolocation of the building, and data stored in a wind zone database;
identify a fenestration unit that meets the wind loading requirement level; and
display data about performance levels of the identified fenestration unit, the wind loading requirement level, and the image of a fenestration location of the building with the image of the replacement fenestration superimposed thereon.
(Broadest reasonable interpretation: the “database” is interpreted to be comprehensive collection of information organized in record; “fenestration unit” is interpreted to be a window or door as described in the specification page 21 and Fig. 11)
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of determining (i.e., evaluating) fenestrations requirement of building for consultants, owners, and regulatory authorities. This is supported by page 1 of the applicant’s specification, “select appropriate fenestrations for a given building while making both the requirements for and the performance of specific fenestrations clear for stakeholders including product consultants, building owners, and regulatory authorities.” The above-mentioned limitations are steps that can be performed mentally and/or by hand, that fall within the category of “Mental Processes” - concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, and judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components of control circuit, geolocation circuit, database unit, and display unit, then it falls within the “Mental processes” category of the abstract ideas.
Additionally and alternatively, the examiner further finds that the claims involving the determination of wind loading requirement level (i.e., mathematic calculation) for fenestrations of the building, is directed to “Mathematical Concept” category of the abstract ideas. Although not expressly recited in the claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the step of determining a wind loading requirement level for fenestration of the building based on user input of building and fenestration location includes mathematical calculation. This is supported in pages 14, 16, “fenestration unit area (e.g., the product of height and width)” and pages 27-28 describing the mathematical equations used to calculate wind loads and wind pressure.
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “coastal fenestration product system comprising: a control circuit in communication with a wind zone database and a product characteristics database;” “a display unit;” “an image generation circuit comprising a graphics processing unit, wherein the image generation circuit is in electronic communication with the control circuit and is configured to”; “a geolocation circuit, wherein the geolocation circuit is in electronic communication with the control circuit and is configured to;” “wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to”; “in the wind zone database”; “on the product characteristics database” and “on the display unit”.
The additional element of a system comprising generic computer elements are found to recite mere instructions to apply a generic computer and technology to execute the method in the recited claim limitations, as merely using a computer to determine and transmit information is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. The above-mentioned additional elements merely recite computer elements to communicate, receive, determine, identify, and display information. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, i.e., these generic computing elements are merely being used to perform the tasks of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication from the specification that the computer elements are anything but generic hardware and/or software, and the combination of elements is simply a generic computing system (See Applicant’s Specification at least pages 23-25 and Fig. 24 describing generic computer components of control circuit, geolocation circuit, GPU, mass storage, and display; page 11 describing the generic functioning server and database storage).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for determining wind loading requirement of buildings. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2-5, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim. The claims recite the use of same additional element of computer system, at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of calculating and identifying information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 7, 9, and 36 these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of image generating circuit and visual user interface, at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of generating and displaying information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claim 10, the clam is directed towards reciting another generic computer system without a functional step.
As for dependent claims 11, 12, 14, and 15, the claims are directed towards the same additional elements of the independent claim for system to load/retrieve, issue, generate, and transmit information, which is recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claim 13, the clam is directed towards describing the geolocation circuit which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claim.
As for dependent claims 16-20, these clams are directed to providing additional descriptive information of the input, building, fenestration, and system user, which the additional information does not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. No additional element is recited.
Accordingly, the claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10-20, and 36 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-11, 14, 16-19, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyrrell et al (US 20240020929 A1) in view of Krebs et al (US 20120078685 A1).
Claim 1, Tyrrell discloses a coastal fenestration product system (para. [0001] “system”; AU2020903771: para. 81 “system 10 includes a computer processing system 12”; para. 31 “computer processing system” para. 32 “mobile computing device”) comprising:
a control circuit (para. [0079] disclosing processor which is control circuit; AU2020903771: para. 100 and 95 “computer processor”; para. 84 “processor”);
display unit (para. [0019] “display screen”; [0063] “touch screen”; AU2020903771: para. 76, 89 “display screen”; para. 81 “display 14”);
an image generation circuit comprising a graphics processing unit, wherein the image generation circuit is in electronic communication with the control circuit and is configured to generate an output for a visual user interface displaying the wind loading requirement level for one or more fenestrations of the building (para. [0062], discloses a computing device with a “graphics processing unit (GPU) 112” and [0074], “data visualization module 124” that “renders a construction display”, this is representative of an image generation circuit comprising a graphics processing unit. Para. [0024], the system is configured to retrieve and display geospatial information including wind loading and construction information that defines one or more construction requirements, see para. [0080]. This teaches the display of the wind loading requirement level information for the fenestration (construction) information of the building; AU2020903771: para. 28, 43, 45, “image processing engine” that processes images; para. 82 “computer processing system 12 is caused to present pictorial representations of elements of the building”; para. 81 “display 14 whereon an interactive graphical representation of a building 20… is caused to be displayed”. In para. 92 discloses the display of wind loading for the selected area);
a geolocation circuit (para. [0062], “one or more sensors 119. Para. [0098] disclosing global position system (GSP) module to detect the position of the computing device. AU2020903771: para. 91 received location data from the GPS module), wherein the geolocation circuit is in electronic communication with the control circuit and is configured to determine a geolocation of a building (para. [0024] and [0143] disclosing receiving GPS sensor data and retrieving geospatial information associated with the current location or geographical area of the building element. Further see para. [0016] and claim 26. AU2020903771: para. 91 received location data from the GPS module. Para. 92 “location data has been received”);
wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to (para. [0024] disclosing computing device which is representative of the costal fenestration production system. AU2020903771: para. 81 “system 10 includes a computer processing system 12”; para. 31 “computer processing system” para. 32 “mobile computing device”)
receive an input from a system user regarding the building and fenestration locations therein (para. [0021] and [0039] disclosing providing first user input that corresponds to a first location of the construction zone. Para. [0027] disclosing the receiving of user input indicative of the selected building element on the building representation. Para. [0142], receiving a user selection for a construction region. AU2020903771: para. 22, 31 “computer processing system provides on the display screen one or more user input field to receive: any one of: measurements data of a nearby building element;…” see Fig. 13 local input; GPS location, wind class, climate); and
determine a wind loading requirement level for one or more fenestrations of the building based on the input from the system user and the geolocation of the building, and data stored in a wind zone database (para. [0024] and claim 35 disclosing the identifying and retrieving of geospatial information based on current location or geographical area of the building element. The geospatial information includes wind loading information and construction requirements. This is further described in para. [0143], geospatial information retrieved is based on currently location and additional construction-related information associated with the current location is presented which includes construction requirements associated with the geospatial information, for example, building dimensions and/or material required to withstand or accommodate location-specific parameters (e.g., relating to wind loading for the selected area). In para. [0099], “the server device 160 can communicate with one or several databases 172 (e.g., via a geospatial data server 170) that store geospatial information or information that can be linked to a geographic context, such as local weather patterns (e.g., relating to wind loading for the selected area, temperature ranges, rainfall ranges), location-specific standards, best practice guidelines, or construction-related information such as likely pests in a particular location” disclosing the geospatial information relating to wind loading of the selected area data is retrieved from the (wind zone) database. The office asserts, the construction requirement for wind loading for the selected area is representative of the wind loading requirement level for one or more fenestrations of the building based on the input of the current geolocation of the construction building. AU2020903771: para. 91-92 and Fig. 13);
identify a fenestration unit that meets the wind loading requirement level (para. [0027] and [0039] disclosing selecting building element (i.e., construction component) on the building representation and cause detailed information relating to construction standards of the relevant element or elements to be displayed on a screen. In para. [0123] and [0140]-[0141] disclosing identifying and presenting construction region or construction component (which is representative of a fenestration unit, see para. [0085], “window”) for compliance and construction requirement information; Further, para. [0099] and [0143] disclosing the construction requirement information includes building dimensions and/or material required to withstand or accommodate location-specific parameters (e.g., relating to wind loading for the selected area), which discloses whether the construction component (i.e., fenestration unit) meets the construction requirement to withstand wind load based on the information retrieved; AU2020903771: para. 91-92, and Fig. 13 states the system accesses data relating to wind loading for the selected area and then the certification engine present other marked up construction elements 20 for review. The markup on the elements (shown in fig. 7 and fig. 13) serves to identify which parts of the unit meet or fail the determined requirement level. In fig. 9 and 10 presents construction elements being assessed including windows and doors for checklist for materials and NCC (National Construction Code) standard as act of identifying that the unit meets the required level for specific site wind load requirement);
display data about the identified fenestration unit, the wind loading requirement level, and the image of a fenestration location of the building with the image of the replacement fenestration superimposed thereon on the display unit (para. [0027] and [0039] disclosing selecting building element (i.e., construction component) on the building representation and cause detailed information relating to construction standards of the relevant element or elements to be displayed on a screen. Para. [0067] disclosing the display unit. In para. [0085] disclosing construction component includes windows which is representative of fenestration unit. Para. [0011], [0027], and [0140] disclosing the use of graphical user interface for visual output of construction information including the wind loading requirement for the building component (i.e. fenestrations of the building). Abstract, “rendering a first enhanced construction image that combines the retrieved image data for the construction components with a schematic representation of the construction information.” Claims 29 and 37 disclose the display of the wind loading requirement level and the superimposed image. AU2020903771: claims 1, 3, para. 46, 81, 82, 100. Fig. 9, 10, and 13.).
However, Tyrell does not expressly teach:
a wind loading rating of a replacement fenestration; and
display data about performance levels of the identified fenestration unit.
Nonetheless, Krebs is in the similar field of construction inspection, which specifically teaches,
a wind loading rating of a replacement fenestration (para. [0088]-[0089] teaches analyzing design options (i.e., replacement fenestrations) for compliance with standards which involves determining and displaying the performance rating (i.e., wind loading rating) of the design options); and
display data about performance levels of the identified fenestration unit (Para. [0086] and [0088] teaching the identified replacement fenestration and its performance data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the coastal fenestration product system of Tyrrell in presenting wind loading requirement to user to include the feature of determine a wind speed zone based on the geolocation of the building in order to determine the wind loading requirement level for one or more fenestrations of the building as taught by Krebs for the motivation of providing a more effective and robust system and method for providing the analyzed design options for architectural structure to which improve structure’s sustainability in lower resource consumption and minimize environmental impacts (para. [0002]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar construction visualization field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same construction visualization related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Krebs, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 2, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell does not expressly disclose wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to determine a wind speed zone based on the geolocation of the building in order to determine the wind loading requirement level for one or more fenestrations of the building.
Nonetheless, Krebs is in the similar field of construction inspection, which specifically teaches, wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to determine a wind speed zone based on the geolocation of the building in order to determine the wind loading requirement level for one or more fenestrations of the building (para. [0012] and [0103] teaches the fenestration of the architectural structure is dependent on the wind speed based on the geographic location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the coastal fenestration product system of Tyrrell in presenting wind loading requirement to user to include the feature of determine a wind speed zone based on the geolocation of the building in order to determine the wind loading requirement level for one or more fenestrations of the building as taught by Krebs for the motivation of providing a more effective and robust system and method for providing the analyzed design options for architectural structure to which improve structure’s sustainability in lower resource consumption and minimize environmental impacts (para. [0002]).
Claim 4, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell further discloses wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to identify a wind loading rating of one or more fenestrations for installation in the building (Tyrrell, para. [0123] and [0140]-[0141] disclosing the identifying workplace compliance, standards, rules, and mandatory requirements (from building codes, building standards, best practices guidance etc.) for construction region or construction component (i.e., fenestrations for installation in the building). In para. [0143] disclosing the construction requirement includes location-specific parameters relating to wind loading).
Claim 5, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell further discloses wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to identify a selected fenestration as having a sufficient or insufficient wind loading rating with respect to the determined wind loading requirement level (para. [0116] and [0126] disclosing the providing information includes thresholds for the construction information and rating, which the threshold is representative of the identifying sufficient or insufficient wind loading rating based on requirement. Further in para. [0140] discloses the providing of risk indicators which includes risk associated with incorrect construction practices which is representative of identifying insufficient wind loading rating based on requirement).
Claim 9, T the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell further discloses wherein the image generation circuit is configured to superimpose the wind loading requirement on a portion of the image of the fenestration location and superimpose a wind loading rating of the replacement fenestration on the image of the replacement fenestration (Abstract, “rendering a first enhanced construction image that combines the retrieved image data for the construction components with a schematic representation of the construction information.” In para. [0143], geospatial information retrieved is based on currently location and additional construction-related information associated with the current location is presented which includes construction requirements associated with the geospatial information, for example, building dimensions and/or material required to withstand or accommodate location-specific parameters (e.g., relating to wind loading for the selected area). The office asserts, the construction requirement for wind loading for the selected area).
Claim 10, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell further discloses further comprising a mobile coastal fenestration product system (para. [0074] disclosing mobile computing device).
Claim 11, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell further discloses wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to load a project file from a non-volatile memory, the project file including a project geolocation, and cross-reference the project geolocation against a present geolocation as indicated by the geolocation circuit (para. [0074] disclosing the use of application programming interface function for the construction application to retrieve current location and orientation of the computing device. The construction application is stored in memory configured to generate interactive enhanced construction images. The construction application 122 can receive construction view data in a raster (e.g., bitmap) or non-raster (e.g., vector graphics) format from the server device 160. A data visualization module 124 implemented in the construction application 122 then renders a construction display based on the construction view data).
Claim 14, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell further discloses wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to generate a regulatory output listing regulatory requirements and wind loading levels for the one or more fenestrations of the building (para. [0024] and claim 35 disclosing the identifying and retrieving of geospatial information based on current location or geographical area of the building element. The geospatial information includes wind loading information and construction requirements. This is further described in para. [0143], geospatial information retrieved is based on currently location and additional construction-related information associated with the current location is presented which includes construction requirements associated with the geospatial information, for example, building dimensions and/or material required to withstand or accommodate location-specific parameters (e.g., relating to wind loading for the selected area). The office asserts, the construction requirement for wind loading for the selected area is representative of the wind loading requirement level for one or more fenestrations of the building based on the input of the current location of the construction building).
Claim 16, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell further discloses the input comprising one or more of fenestration unit size, fenestration proximity to a building corner, average building height, building category, and fenestration exposure (para. [0087] disclosing the construction information includes dimensions such as a distance to a boundary with is representative of fenestration unit size and fenestration proximity to a building corner).
Claim 17, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell further discloses wherein the building is a residential building (para. [0078] and [0132] disclosing construction region include residential building).
Claim 18, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell further discloses wherein the building is a commercial building (para. [0075] and [0078] disclosing construction region may be commercial building).
Claim 19, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell further discloses wherein the one or more fenestrations include windows and/or doors (para. [0085] and [0132] disclosing construction component includes windows).
Claim 36, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell further discloses wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to display the image of the fenestration location of the building with the image of the replacement fenestration superimposed thereon and a representation of an actual view of the building, wherein the representation of the actual view is an image captured with a camera (Claim 26 and para. [0062], Tyrrell describes an augmented reality system implemented on a portable device like a smartphone, which includes an image sensor, in form of a camera 102. The nature of mobile AR application is to capture live video feed or still image of the real world using the device’s camera and overlay digital information onto it. Therefore, discloses the representation of the actual view).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyrrell et al (US 20240020929 A1) in view of Krebs et al (US 20120078685 A1) and further in view Suits et al (US 20240169720A1).
Claim 3, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system of claim 2. Tyrrell teaches the determining the distance to boundary. However, the combination fails to expressly teach, wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to calculate a proximity to an adjacent wind speed zone.
Nonetheless, Suits is in the field of catastrophe analysis on map layer based on wind speed, which specifically teaches, wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to calculate a proximity to an adjacent wind speed zone (Abstract teaches the receiving and determining of wind speed probabilities on map. Para. [0067]-[0070] teaches the determining of the distance of the nearby coordinate pair (i.e. zone, zip code) for wind speed prediction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the coastal fenestration product system of Tyrrell in presenting wind loading requirement to user to include the feature of calculate a proximity to an adjacent wind speed zone as taught by Suits for the motivation of providing a more robust system and method for providing user with visualizations of weather data to facilitate a user's understanding of catastrophic risk from weather effects (para. [0002]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyrrell et al (US 20240020929 A1) in view of Krebs et al (US 20120078685 A1) and further in view of Official Notice.
Claim 13, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell discloses the use of global position system (GPS) module to receive sensor data indicative of the location of the computing device (para. [0016] and [0098]). However, Tyrrell does not expressly state the global position system (GPS) module is a satellite signal receiver.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it is old and well-known to one skilled in the art of global position system for receiving global position location of a computing device would include the use of satellite and satellite signal receiver to acquire the position of the computing device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to extend in the field of coastal fenestration product system for identifying wind loading requirement based on geolocation of Tyrrell to include the use of satellite signal receiver as the GPS module to receive the geolocation information of the building with the use of mobile computing devices.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyrrell et al (US 20240020929 A1) in view of Krebs et al (US 20120078685 A1) and further in view of Conover (US 20090125283 A1).
Claim 7, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. Tyrrell discloses the output for the visual user interface for system user, however, Tyrrell does not expressly disclose, wherein the output for the visual user interface is configured based on a role identity of the system user.
Nonetheless, Conover is in the field of determining compliance with building regulations which specifically teaches,
wherein the output for the visual user interface is configured based on a role identity of the system user (Para. [0017], [0043], and [0059] teaching user interface that allows automated code checking to various trusted entities such as builders, federal officials to ensure compliance with requirements. In para. [0066] teaching the tool is used by architects, engineers, code officials, contractors and manufacturers and others to present data for building or structure design and/or products, materials and systems used in a building).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the coastal fenestration product system of Tyrrell in presenting wind loading requirement to user to include the features of output for the visual user interface is configured based on a role identity of the system user as taught by Conover for the motivation of accurately and reliably provide the collected and utilize building and system data submitted for compliance checking (para. [0002]).
Claim 15, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 14. However, Tyrrell does not expressly disclose, wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to transmit the regulatory output to a regulatory authority.
Nonetheless, Conover is in the field of determining compliance with building regulations which specifically teaches,
wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to transmit the regulatory output to a regulatory authority (Conover: para. [0017], [0043], and [0059] teaching user interface that allows automated code checking to various trusted entities such as builders, federal officials to ensure compliance with requirements. In para. [0066] teaching the tool is used by architects, engineers, code officials, contractors and manufacturers and others to present data for building or structure design and/or products, materials and systems used in a building. The code official is representative of regulatory authority).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the coastal fenestration product system of Tyrrell in presenting wind loading requirement to user to include the features of transmit the regulatory output to a regulatory authority such as federal code official as taught by Conover for the motivation of accurately and reliably provide the collected and utilize building and system data submitted for compliance checking (para. [0002]).
Claim 20, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 1. However, Tyrrell does not expressly disclose, the system user comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of a building contractor, a building project sales professional, a building product consultant, an architect, and a building inspector.
Nonetheless, Conover is in the field of determining compliance with building regulations which specifically teaches,
the system user comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of a building contractor, a building project sales professional, a building product consultant, an architect, and a building inspector (Conover: para. [0017], [0043], and [0059] teaching user interface that allows automated code checking to various trusted entities such as builders, federal officials to ensure compliance with requirements. In para. [0066] teaching the tool is used by architects, engineers, code officials, contractors and manufacturers and others to present data for building or structure design and/or products, materials and systems used in a building.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the coastal fenestration product system of Tyrrell in presenting wind loading requirement to user to include the features of presenting the information to users selected from the group consisting of a building contractor, a building project sales professional, a building product consultant, an architect, and a building inspector as taught by Conover for the motivation of accurately and reliably provide the collected and utilize building and system data submitted for compliance checking (para. [0002]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyrrell et al (US 20240020929 A1) in view of Krebs et al (US 20120078685 A1) and further in view of Pardo-Fernandez (US 20140278280 A1).
Claim 12, the combination of Tyrrell and Krebs make obvious of the system claim 11. However, Tyrrell does not expressly disclose, wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to issue a notice to the system user if the project geolocation does not match the present geolocation.
Nonetheless, Pardo-Fernandez is in the field of system and method for designing buildings which specifically teaches,
wherein the coastal fenestration product system is configured to issue a notice to the system user if the project geolocation does not match the present geolocation (para. [0038]-[0041] disclosing notifying user that the building location does not match the correct zoning district or address).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the coastal fenestration product system of Tyrrell to include the feature of notifying the user the project geolocation does not match the present geolocation as taught by Pardo-Fernandez for the motivation of providing a more efficient and robust system and method for accurately identify proper structure building within correct district for more affordable projects (para. [0006]-[0008]).
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant has conflated the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. Here, examiner identified the following steps as part of the abstract idea: collecting of input information regarding the building and fenestrations; determining a wind loading requirement level based on the collected information of geolocation of the building and previous data record of wind zone; identifying a fenestration unit that meets the wind loading requirement level; and presenting the information. The control circuit, display, image generation circuit comprising graphics processing unit, user interface, geolocation circuit, etc. are considered additional elements, which are merely facilitating the tasks of said abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear that this generic recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. This interpretation holds whether the additional elements are viewed alone or in combination, where the combination of elements is nothing more than a network-enabled computing system.
On pages 6-8 of the remarks, the Appellant asserts the claimed invention is patent eligible in view of Core Wireless.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R. L. v LG Electronics, Inc. recites a specific technological improvement upon conventional user interfaces on precise language delimiting the type of data to be displayed and how to display it, in the claims and supported by the specification, however, the present application does not recite similar claim limitations. That is, in Core Wireless, claim 1 required “an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu” and further limiting the application summary (such as having the application summary list a limited set of data with each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application) as well as a particular manner of accessing the summary window and certain other limitations. In the other hand, the present application is more similar to findings in Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, (pages 9-10), “TT asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they provide a particular graphical user interface that improves usability, visualization, and efficiency.” “While the fact that an invention is run on a generic computer does not, by itself, “doom the claims,” Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the claims here fail because arranging information along an axis does not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Like Electric Power, the purported advance “is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.” 830 F.3d at 1354. We thus conclude that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.” (Examiner emphasis added) The Examiner asserts the user interface (GUI) is merely used for displaying wind loading requirement, image of fenestration location of the building and replacement fenestration in an arranged order for visualization, however, the graphical user interface technology is not improved in any way.
On pages 7-8, the Applicant asserts specific hardware elements and improvement to computer systems. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on the specification in pages 23-25, indicating wide-range of possible computer components, sensors, memory, GPU, and processor, the claim and the specification recites the functional steps can be implemented on generic computer system “such as a tablet computing device or a smart phone” (page 23).
On page 8, the Applicant asserts: “This recited configuration does not simply invoke generic computer components to carry out a mental process. Rather, the claim recites how the components are specifically arranged and used to accomplish a technical outcome: the generation and display of a composite, spatially-correlated visualization in which a replacement fenestration image is superimposed on an image of an actual fenestration location of a building, while concurrently presenting performance and requirement data for that specific location. This arrangement changes how the computer and graphics hardware operate to present building and performance information in a manner that would not be achieved by mere mental visualization or by generic data listing.
The claim therefore effects a practical application: a concrete tool for on-site or project-specific evaluation of fenestration products with respect to wind loading performance and regulatory requirements, while also showing the aesthetic impact at the actual building location. Claim 1 applies any abstract idea with a particular machine (the claimed system) in a manner that meaningfully limits the claim and effects an improvement in the relevant technology of computer-implemented fenestration design and selection interfaces.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner asserts, that is a business/economic problem for on-site or project-specific evaluation of fenestration products with respect to wind loading performance and regulatory requirements with utilization or applying of computer or mobile system for display of information, however, this is not technological problem and there is no technological improvement reflected in the claims nor the specification.
That is, as reflected in Enfish, there is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements (improvement of the technology or technical field), on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task (collecting, analyzing, and displaying information), on the other. The alleged advantages that the Applicant touts do not concern an improvement to computer capabilities or any machinery but instead relate to an alleged improvement in collecting, determining, and displaying information for a desirable result, which a computer is used as a mere tool in its ordinary capacity, see MPEP 2106.05(f). To further clarify, Applicant reflected a business need of the abstract idea for the collecting of information and use the collected information to determine wind loading requirement for fenestration of building and presenting the analyzed information in an aesthetic manner. The claim nor the specification describes the technological details of how the technical outcome of “the generation and display of a composite, spatially-correlated visualization in which a replacement fenestration image is superimposed on an image of an actual fenestration location of a building, while concurrently presenting performance and requirement data for that specific location.” But rather, the claim and specification only recite that with the additional elements of control circuit, graphical processing unit, and display unit, the desirable display of information can be accomplished in a particular way. The claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology of the computer functionalities other than, by using the additional elements of the claimed invention, the desired result can be produced without a doubt and concern to technological details for how it is accomplished. That is, the computer system itself or specific technology is not improved in anyway other than being applied as a tool/instrument for the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Thus, the 101 rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
The Applicant asserts the Australian priority application AU2020903771 does not describe the subject matter relied upon in reference Tyrrell (US 20240020929 A1). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner will provide the Australian priority application AU2020903771 in the attachment. The 103 rejection above is not changed. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner provided the corresponding citations from Australian priority application AU2020903771 for the limitations in claim 1 to address applicant’s remarks. Thus, the 103 rejection is maintained.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Glenn et al. (US 20210383033 A1) is directed to a system and method for determining a set of building requirements applicable to the structure, establishing an architectural plan for the structure using a computing device including establishing on a grid sets of modularized structural and nonstructural walls, establishing doors and windows, and establishing locations for plumbing fixtures such that plumbing fixtures are placed in positions avoiding conflict with structural elements in the set of modularized structural walls.
J. Douglas Balcomb, "Building Solar Gain Modeling," in Passive Solar Buildings, MIT Press, 2008, pp.39-109 teaches impact of wind loading on window.
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 WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights