DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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.
Status of the Claims
A communication was received on August 14, 2025 and whereby claims 1, 9, 10, and 20 were amended, no claims were cancelled, and claims 21 and 22 were added. Applicant did not provide any information on where support for the amendments can be found in the instant specification. Therefore, claims 1-22 were pending. In response a notice of a non-compliant amendment was sent on December 11, 2025.
This communication is in response to the reply received on December 11, 2025, in response to notice of noncompliant amendment dated December 11, 2025. The applicant’s reply dated December 11, 2025 whereby claim(s) 1, 9, 10, and 20 were amended, claim(s) 17-18 were cancelled, claim(s) 21 and 22 were added, and claims 18-20 (which followed claims 1-19 thus resulting in duplicate claims 18-19) are now respectively numbered 20-22. Applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments can be found in the instant specification. Therefore, claims 1-16 and 19-22 are now pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/11/25, with respect to objections claim(s) 18 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner respectfully withdraws objections claim(s) 18 and 18.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/11/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 1-8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims are an abstract idea directed to matching a client to a designer. While the amendments use cascading filters instead of simple filters the mere inclusion of filters does not overcome the 101 rejection.
While the system may handle simultaneous parallel user sessions, scalable cloud architecture, and “banking” of surplus matches for future retrieval this information is not claimed.
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 12/11/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 for claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 103 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 8-15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because while Kumm and Parade achieve matching users and designers differently both still serve a primary purpose of matching users and designers based primarily on the user’s input. Once matched the user provides input on the designer’s suggestions. Applicant makes many points that do not address these obvious similarities.
The dependent claim arguments are solely based on stacking and provide no support for the examiner to provide an answer to beyond the stacking. Stacking is addressed by Menne.
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
To evaluate written description support for computer-implemented functional limitations, the critical inquiry is: does the specification explain what hardware and/or software (specifically the steps or procedures) the inventor uses to accomplish the claimed function? The steps or procedures are sometimes called the ‘algorithm’ for performing the function. Whether one of ordinary skill in the art could devise a way to accomplish the function is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention (i.e. it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function). Therefore, without describing the manner and process of making and using the invention, the claimed invention does not satisfy the written description requirement if details of how the inventor performs the function are not disclosed. The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. While disclosure of the program code is not required, the detailed steps or instructions that the program follows should be described. Merely reproducing a claim limitation in the specification or pointing to an original claim does not satisfy the written description requirement, unless the claim itself conveys enough information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See MPEP 2161.01 (Computer Programming and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph).
Generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350, 94 USPQ2d at 1171; Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed)”. Additionally, original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171.
Claims 1-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claims 1, 10, and 20-22 recite “filtering by budget, applying a budget algorithm with discipline-and sector-specific weighting and logic,
filtering by style, including a "no style" choice; {the stack layer data supporting filtering by location, scope of work, budget, and style, including a "no style" selection;
a budget module with discipline- and sector-specific weighting and logic to allocate a project budget across multiple spaces by applying weighted factors based on a type and a scope of work for each space, where spaces designated for renovation or selected project types are assigned a greater proportion of the budget than spaces designated for decoration; – claim 1} {filtering by budget, applying a budget algorithm with discipline-and sector-specific weighting and logic,
filtering by style including a "no style" choice; – claim 20}
{wherein matching further comprises: allocating a specified total project budget across the plurality of spaces according to predetermined weightings, wherein spaces designated for renovation or selected project types are assigned a greater proportion of the budget than spaces designated for decoration, the allocation further reflecting discipline- and sector-specific weighting logic associated with the selected service provider category;
applying a contingency factor by automatically increasing an indicated budget by a predetermined percentage to account for industry-standard contingency costs;
comparing the allocated budgets for each space against historical project cost data of candidate service providers to filter and score by their ability to deliver completed work within the user's specified investment range; and
dynamically adjusting weightings based on scope selections for each space and the type of each space – claim 21-22}
Examiner notes the bolded portion of the representative claims above is new matter (with the exception of the comparing and dynamically steps of claims 21-22, see below). Initially, Examiner notes the bolded portion recites a) “applying a budget algorithm with discipline specific weighting and logic,” and b) “filtering including a "no style" choice” which does not appear to be supported by the originally filed disclosure. Examiner notes that for a) the closest portions of the original disclosure include [0054, 0066-0067, 0144] which only states budgeting based on sector specific data. Examiner notes that for b) the closest portions of the original disclosure include [0068, 0084, 0150] has not mention of not selecting a style. None of these portions however disclose the above bolded claim language. Regarding claims 21-22, in addition to a, the comparing and dynamically steps are based on allocating steps (as noted by the emphasis added of bolding) and thus can’t be done. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim(s) 2-9, 11-16, 19, and 21-22 is/are rejected because they depend on claim(s) 1, 10, and 20.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected. Regarding claim(s) 19, it has been held that a claim that recites both a system and a method for using said system is indefinite under section 112, paragraph 2. As such, a claim is not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the 'metes and bounds' of protection involved-IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1140 (CA FC 2005); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (B.P.A.I. 1990)
A single claim which purports to be in multiple statutory classes is ambiguous and is properly rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention-Ex Parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (B.P.A.I. 1990).
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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 1-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The limitations below for independent claims 1, 10, and 20 that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to matching a client to a designer.
Step 1: The claims are directed to a process (claims 9-16 and 19-21 recite a series of steps) and a system (claim(s) 1-8 and 22 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s) in the following representative claim(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 10: receiving initial search criteria for an interior design project;
enabling a user to interactively configure a scope of work for spaces for the interior design project;
stacking data from one or more criteria sets including one or more of location, style, scope of work or budget, the stacking comprising:
filtering by location,
filtering by scope of work, including any discipline- and sector-specific requirements,
filtering by budget, applving a budget algorithm with discipline-and sector-specific weighting and logic,
filtering by style, including a "no style" choice; and
obtaining input on at least one desired design style and budget for the configured scope of work and
matching the user based on the stacked data and the stacking sequence.
Claim(s) 1 and 20: same analysis as claim(s) 10.
Claim 1 additionally: a budget module with discipline- and sector-specific weighting and logic to allocate a proiect budget across multiple spaces by applving weighted factors based on a type and a scope of work for each space, where spaces designated for renovation or selected project types are assigned a greater proportion of the budget than spaces designated for decoration.
Claim 20 additionally: wherein, if the stacked filtering results in more than a maximum set of service providers, automatically selecting the maximum set of service providers and storing other service provider contact information in a project profile for retrieval.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, 19, and 21-22 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 20 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with matching a client to a designer.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include system, computing device, user interface, processors, network (claim(s) 1), computer-implemented, platform, network, remote computing device, user-interface (claim(s) 10), user interface (claim(s) 20), computer-readable memory (claim(s) 4, 12).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0222]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0222]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 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, 6-8, 9, 10, 14-16, 19, 20-21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumm et al. (US 2013/0073420 A1) in view of Menne published December 27, 2021 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited).
Regarding claim 1, 10, and 20 (currently amended), Kumm teaches a computer-implemented designer matching method carried out on a platform coupled over a data network to an application on a remote computing device accessed by a user through a user-interface, the method comprising the steps of {A design matching system comprising: – claim 1} {A method of matching one or more clients to one or more service providers, comprising – claim 18} [see at least Fig. 21 and [0090] “Referring to FIG. 21, in some implementations, an exemplary interior design system 2100 includes a portable electronic device 170 (e.g., personal digital assistant, smartphone, tablet computer, ultra-mobile PC) communicating (e.g., wirelessly or via a wired connection, such as Ethernet or USB) to a communication network 210 and/or a remote computing device 160. The communication network 210 may include a cloud computing service 230 (also referred to as a cloud) having a cloud server 232 and cloud storage 234 in communication with a portal 240 (e.g., web portal) for receiving/transmitting content 250.”;
[0115] “Implementations of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back end component, e.g., as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, e.g., an application server, or that includes a front end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the subject matter described is this specification, or any combination of one or more such back end, middleware, or front end components.”]:
receiving initial search criteria for an interior design project [see at least [0060] “Referring to FIGS. 3A-5C, in some implementations, the client style 110 is determined by scoring answers to a quiz (e.g., an online quiz). The quiz may provide a series of images 330 (e.g., of design elements or combinations of design elements, such as rooms, pieces of furniture, color schemes, etc.) or questions assessed by a quiz taker, such as the designer 102 or the client 104.”];
enabling a user to interactively configure a scope of work for spaces for the interior design project;
data from one or more criteria sets including one or more of location, style, scope of work or budget, comprising:
filtering by location,
filtering by scope of work, including any discipline- and sector-specific requirements,
filtering by budget, applving a budget algorithm with discipline-and sector-specific weighting and logic,
filtering by style, including a "no style" choice; {layer data supporting filtering by location, scope of work, budget, and style, including a "no style" selection;
a budget module with discipline- and sector-specific weighting and logic to allocate a proiect budget across multiple spaces by applving weighted factors based on a type and a scope of work for each space, where spaces designated for renovation or selected project types are assigned a greater proportion of the budget than spaces designated for decoration; – claim 1} {the received project criteria in a manner comprising at least the steps of:
filtering by location,
filtering by scope of work, including any discipline-and sector-specific requirements,
filtering by budget, applying a budget algorithm with discipline-and sector-specific weighting and logic,
filtering by style including a "no style" choice; – claim 18} and [for the limitations above,
as noted by the 112 rejection above the filtering by budget limitation is not supported by the instant specification and is interpreted based on broadest reasonable interpretation of instant specification [0054, 0066-0067, 0144],
as noted by the 112 rejection above the filtering by style limitation is not supported by the instant specification and is interpreted as filtering by style,
as noted by the 112 rejection above the a budget module is not supported by the instant specification and is interpreted as a budget for a project,
then see at least [0069] define client preferences “client preferences 120 may include one or a combination of client specific traits, such as, but not limited to, a weighted list of client styles, a budget range, maximum and/or minimum budget thresholds, a client age or age range, a client income, a client family status, a client family size, a number of viewings of one or more pieces of furniture, a browsing history of pieces of furniture, etc.”;
[0058] further define client preferences “The client 104 may choose his/her designer 102 based on a geographical location of the designer 102 or the client 104.”;
[0070] further define client preferences such as scope of work “room type (e.g., living room, bedroom, kitchen, etc.)”;
[0057] further define client preferences “Referring to FIGS. 1A, 1B and 2, in some implementations an interior design system 100 matches a client 104 to a designer 102 using attributes of each of the client 104 and the designer 102. The system 100 considers a client style 110, a favorite list 770 which includes favorite products 760 and favorite design look 750 that the client 104 indicated he/she likes, and responses to a questionnaire 610 that the client 104 answers. The system 100 also considers the designer 102 attributes to provide the client 104 with a list of designers 102 having profiles 122 a-n with the same or similar style 110 as the client 104. In some examples, the system 100 considers attributers of a designer 102 such as location, style, and answers to questions. The system 100 provides the client 104 with a list of designers 102 who meet the requirements of the client 104 and who are within the geographical area of the client 104.”;
[0060] further define client preferences “Referring to FIGS. 3A-5C, in some implementations, the client style 110 is determined by scoring answers to a quiz (e.g., an online quiz). The quiz may provide a series of images 330 (e.g., of design elements or combinations of design elements, such as rooms, pieces of furniture, color schemes, etc.) or questions assessed by a quiz taker, such as the designer 102 or the client 104.”]; and
obtaining input on at least one desired design style and budget for the configured scope of work {an application operable on a computing device accessed by a user, the application configured to present a user interface for an entry of user information including one or more of location, style, scope of work or budget for each work item as a group and wherein data for a plurality of work items are stacked in one or more layers and the application filters each layer data with location in a first and additional layer data including style, scope of work or budget to locate a match search result for each respective stack layer – claim 1} {presenting a user interface for an entry of user information including one or more of location, style, scope of work or budget, each being a layer of a stack – claim 20} and
matching the user based on the stacked data and the stacking sequence {and a matching manager implemented on one or more processors and coupled to the application over a data network,
wherein the matching manager is configured to match the user and one or more professionals based on the user information entered by the user and matching one or more professionals for each stack layer – claim 1} {applying the stacked filtering to determine a set of service providers matching the owner's cumulative criteria;
wherein, if the stacked filtering results in more than a maximum set of service providers, automatically selecting the maximum set of service providers and storing other service provider contact information in a project profile for retrieval;
filtering the data in the stack to provide a match search result with one or more professionals;
matching one of the clients to one or more service providers based on the user information entered by the user – claim 20} [for the limitations above, see at least [0115] “Implementations of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back end component, e.g., as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, e.g., an application server, or that includes a front end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the subject matter described is this specification, or any combination of one or more such back end, middleware, or front end components.”;
[0069] “client preferences 120 may include one or a combination of client specific traits, such as, but not limited to, a weighted list of client styles, a budget range, maximum and/or minimum budget thresholds, a client age or age range, a client income, a client family status, a client family size, a number of viewings of one or more pieces of furniture, a browsing history of pieces of furniture, etc.”;
[0058] “The client 104 may choose his/her designer 102 based on a geographical location of the designer 102 or the client 104.”;
[0070] scope of work “room type (e.g., living room, bedroom, kitchen, etc.)”;
[0057] “Referring to FIGS. 1A, 1B and 2, in some implementations an interior design system 100 matches a client 104 to a designer 102 using attributes of each of the client 104 and the designer 102. The system 100 considers a client style 110, a favorite list 770 which includes favorite products 760 and favorite design look 750 that the client 104 indicated he/she likes, and responses to a questionnaire 610 that the client 104 answers. The system 100 also considers the designer 102 attributes to provide the client 104 with a list of designers 102 having profiles 122 a-n with the same or similar style 110 as the client 104. In some examples, the system 100 considers attributers of a designer 102 such as location, style, and answers to questions. The system 100 provides the client 104 with a list of designers 102 who meet the requirements of the client 104 and who are within the geographical area of the client 104.”].
Kumm doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Menne discloses
stacking data from one or more criteria sets including one or more of various data, the stacking comprising:
filtering by one of various data,
filtering by one of various data,
filtering by one of various data,
filtering by one of various data; – claim 1} {stacking the criteria in a sequential and cumulative manner such that each successive criterion further filters the service providers, the stacking comprising at least the steps of:
filtering by one of various data,
filtering by one of various data,
filtering by one of various data,
filtering by one of various data; – claim 20}
{filters each stack layer data with data in a first stack and additional stack layer data including style, scope of work or budget various data for each respective stack layer – claim 1} [see at least [pg 2] cascading filters;
[pg 2-5] creating filters].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumm with Menne to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Menne. Doing so would improve Kumm’s (Kumm) matching by further how the matching is performed such as via a “cascading multi-select filter” which provides “a better end user experience” [see at least Menne [pg 1] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Kumm and b) Menne and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim(s) 2, the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations to claim(s) 10 above and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 6 and 14, modified Kumm teaches the method of claim 10,
and Kumm teaches wherein the scope of work comprises spaces to be designed [see at least [0069] “client preferences 120 may include one or a combination of client specific traits, such as, but not limited to, a weighted list of client styles, a budget range, maximum and/or minimum budget thresholds, a client age or age range, a client income, a client family status, a client family size, a number of viewings of one or more pieces of furniture, a browsing history of pieces of furniture, etc.”;
[0058] “The client 104 may choose his/her designer 102 based on a geographical location of the designer 102 or the client 104.”;
[0070] scope of work “room type (e.g., living room, bedroom, kitchen, etc.)”].
Regarding claim 7 and 15, modified Kumm teaches the method of claim 10,
and Kumm teaches further comprising presenting multiple sample images to the user for selection by the user [see at least [0060] “Referring to FIGS. 3A-5C, in some implementations, the client style 110 is determined by scoring answers to a quiz (e.g., an online quiz). The quiz may provide a series of images 330 (e.g., of design elements or combinations of design elements, such as rooms, pieces of furniture, color schemes, etc.) or questions assessed by a quiz taker, such as the designer 102 or the client 104.”;
[0058] “Referring to FIG. 1B, in some implementations, the system 100 displays a client-designer matching view 1000 that allows the client 104 to choose a designer 102 from the list that the system 100 has already compiled based on the client style 110, favorite products 760, favorite design look 750, and the response to the questionnaire 610.”;
[0059] “Referring to FIG. 2, in some implementations, the system 100 allows the client 104 to interact with different designers 102 to pick his/her furniture. The system 100 provides information 106 about the different designers 102. The client 104 may select a designer 106 c and view photographs 710 c-e of designed rooms that he/she designed. In some examples, the system 100 allows the client 104 to choose and interact with different designers 102 based on his/her specific style and the location he/she lives in to determine the design that fits the personality of the client 104.”].
Regarding claim 8 and 16, modified Kumm teaches the method of claim 10,
and Kumm teaches further comprising enabling the user to indicate the property location of the space(s) to be designed and select whether a space is to be design/decorated, design/renovated, or both [see at least [0081] “The design system 100 facilitates the purchasing experience for the client 104 because the client 104 can use the system 100 to decorate his entire house and order different design elements 152 from different locations using the system 100.”;
[0069] “client preferences 120 may include one or a combination of client specific traits, such as, but not limited to, a weighted list of client styles, a budget range, maximum and/or minimum budget thresholds, a client age or age range, a client income, a client family status, a client family size, a number of viewings of one or more pieces of furniture, a browsing history of pieces of furniture, etc.”;
[0058] “The client 104 may choose his/her designer 102 based on a geographical location of the designer 102 or the client 104.”;
[0070] scope of work “room type (e.g., living room, bedroom, kitchen, etc.)”].
Regarding claim(s) 9, the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations to claim(s) 1, 10, and 20 above and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, modified Kumm teaches the method of claim 1,
and Kumm teaches wherein the the user specifies a new stack for each of the professionals [see at least [0069] user selects items (add stacks) as needed “client preferences 120 may include one or a combination of client specific traits, such as, but not limited to, a weighted list of client styles, a budget range, maximum and/or minimum budget thresholds, a client age or age range, a client income, a client family status, a client family size, a number of viewings of one or more pieces of furniture, a browsing history of pieces of furniture, etc.”;
stack for professional “The design system 100 facilitates the purchasing experience for the client 104 because the client 104 can use the system 100 to decorate his entire house and order different design elements 152 from different locations using the system 100.”;
[0058] stack for professional “The client 104 may choose his/her designer 102 based on a geographical location of the designer 102 or the client 104.”;
[0070] stack for professional and for scope of work “room type (e.g., living room, bedroom, kitchen, etc.)”].
Regarding claim 21 and 22, modified Kumm teaches the method of claim 20,
and Kumm teaches wherein matching further comprises:
allocating a specified total project budget across the plurality of spaces according to predetermined weightings, wherein spaces designated for renovation or selected project types are assigned a greater proportion of the budget than spaces designated for decoration, the allocation further reflecting discipline- and sector-specific weighting logic associated with the selected service provider category;
applying a contingency factor by automatically increasing an indicated budget by a predetermined percentage to account for industry-standard contingency costs;
comparing the allocated budgets for each space against historical project cost data of candidate service providers to filter and score by their ability to deliver completed work within the user's specified investment range; and
dynamically adjusting weightings based on scope selections for each space and the type of each space [as noted in the 112 rejection above, there is no support in the instant specification for allocating step and it is interpreted as a budget for a project,
the comparing and dynamically steps are based on the allocating steps and thus can’t be done and are interpreted as comparing and adjusting,
the applying step appears to be based on the allocating step and interpreted as applying,
then see at least [0074] “Referring to FIG. 11, in some implementations, the project profile 130 may include one or more project attributes, such as, but not limited to, a project name, target design room(s), a project budget range, maximum and/or minimum project budget thresholds, project style, color theme, current furniture, focal piece, product usage, etc.”].
Claim(s) 3-5 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumm in view of Menne as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of Parade home & garden published March 10, 2020 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited dated 7/29/2025).
Regarding claim 3 and 11, modified Kumm teaches the method of claim 10,
and Kumm teaches further comprising filtering designer information according to the initial search criteria, scope of work, desired design style and budget [see at least [0069] “client preferences 120 may include one or a combination of client specific traits, such as, but not limited to, a weighted list of client styles, a budget range, maximum and/or minimum budget thresholds, a client age or age range, a client income, a client family status, a client family size, a number of viewings of one or more pieces of furniture, a browsing history of pieces of furniture, etc.”;
[0058] “The client 104 may choose his/her designer 102 based on a geographical location of the designer 102 or the client 104.”;
[0070] scope of work “room type (e.g., living room, bedroom, kitchen, etc.)”;
[0057] “Referring to FIGS. 1A, 1B and 2, in some implementations an interior design system 100 matches a client 104 to a designer 102 using attributes of each of the client 104 and the designer 102. The system 100 considers a client style 110, a favorite list 770 which includes favorite products 760 and favorite design look 750 that the client 104 indicated he/she likes, and responses to a questionnaire 610 that the client 104 answers. The system 100 also considers the designer 102 attributes to provide the client 104 with a list of designers 102 having profiles 122 a-n with the same or similar style 110 as the client 104. In some examples, the system 100 considers attributers of a designer 102 such as location, style, and answers to questions. The system 100 provides the client 104 with a list of designers 102 who meet the requirements of the client 104 and who are within the geographical area of the client 104.”;
[0060] “Referring to FIGS. 3A-5C, in some implementations, the client style 110 is determined by scoring answers to a quiz (e.g., an online quiz). The quiz may provide a series of images 330 (e.g., of design elements or combinations of design elements, such as rooms, pieces of furniture, color schemes, etc.) or questions assessed by a quiz taker, such as the designer 102 or the client 104.”].
Modified Kumm doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Parade home & garden discloses
available designer [see at least [pg 10] “It pulls together several suggested designers based on your unique style and preferences, and gives you a percentage as to how much of a match you are. Before choosing, we were able to explore their work, browse their favorite products by style, see their expected availability and even watch videos of some of them introducing themselves.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Kumm with Parade home & garden to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Parade home & garden. Doing so would improve modified Kumm’s (Kumm) matching by further defining designer attributes to include availability [see at least Parade home & garden [pg 10] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Kumm and b) Parade home & garden and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kumm teaches the method of claim 11,
and Kumm teaches wherein the filtering includes:
outputting a set of designs for the user to review and rank;
receiving ranking information for the set of designs;
calculating a score for each image based on the ranking information and search criteria [see at least [0057] “Referring to FIGS. 1A, 1B and 2, in some implementations an interior design system 100 matches a client 104 to a designer 102 using attributes of each of the client 104 and the designer 102. The system 100 considers a client style 110, a favorite list 770 which includes favorite products 760 and favorite design look 750 that the client 104 indicated he/she likes, and responses to a questionnaire 610 that the client 104 answers.”;
[0061] “The client 104 may select images that he/she prefers over other images and/or rate or rank the images independently or with respect to the others.”;
[0062] “A progress indicator 340 may notify the client 104 of his/her progress regarding the total number of questions 320 and/or images 330 he/she needs to answer or view.”;
[0059] images of ([0061-0062]) such as those of designers “The client 104 may select a designer 106 c and view photographs 710 c-e of designed rooms that he/she designed”;
[0117] combining parts such as ([0059]) pictures of designers works ([0061]) being rated based on client ranking of pictures the designer works and ([0062]) the rating based on other questions “While this specification contains many specifics, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of the invention or of what may be claimed, but rather as descriptions of features specific to particular implementations of the invention. Certain features that are described in this specification in the context of separate implementations can also be implemented in combination in a single implementation. Conversely, various features that are described in the context of a single implementation can also be implemented in multiple implementations separately or in any suitable sub-combination. Moreover, although features may be described above as acting in certain combinations and even initially claimed as such, one or more features from a claimed combination can in some cases be excised from the combination, and the claimed combination may be directed to a sub-combination or variation of a sub-combination.”];
determining user designer identification for a top set of ranked designs [see at least
[0057] “Referring to FIGS. 1A, 1B and 2, in some implementations an interior design system 100 matches a client 104 to a designer 102 using attributes of each of the client 104 and the designer 102. The system 100 considers a client style 110, a favorite list 770 which includes favorite products 760 and favorite design look 750 that the client 104 indicated he/she likes, and responses to a questionnaire 610 that the client 104 answers.”;
[0061] “The client 104 may select images that he/she prefers over other images and/or rate or rank the images independently or with respect to the others.”;
[0105] “FIG. 25 provides an exemplary arrangement 2500 of operations for a method 2500 of matching a client 104 and a designer 102 for collaborative interior design. The method 2500 includes displaying 2502 on a graphical user interface 162 (FIG. 21) a series of images 330, each image having one or more associated tags 332. The method also includes receiving 2504 at least one image selection from a client 104, associating 2506 the one or more tags 332 associated with the at least one image selection with the client 104, and receiving 2508 profiles 102 a-n of designers 102, each designer profile 122 a-n having one or more associated tags The method further includes executing 2510 a routine on a computing processor 160, 164 that compares the tags 332 associated with the client 104 with the tags 332 associated with each designer profile 122 a-n to determine a compatibility with at least one designer 102, and displaying 2512 on the graphical user interface 162 a list 1000 of one or more compatible designers 102.”]; and
storing scores and ranking information of designers in computer-readable memory [see at least [0086] “Referring to FIG. 20, in some implementations, an interior design system 100 includes a client style 110, a client preference 120, and a project profile 130, each of which may be a programmatic object (e.g., java script object notation (JSON) object, persistent object, or other object) stored in memory (e.g., in a database or random access memory (RAM)) of a computing device 160.”;
[0105] “FIG. 25 provides an exemplary arrangement 2500 of operations for a method 2500 of matching a client 104 and a designer 102 for collaborative interior design. The method 2500 includes displaying 2502 on a graphical user interface 162 (FIG. 21) a series of images 330, each image having one or more associated tags 332. The method also includes receiving 2504 at least one image selection from a client 104, associating 2506 the one or more tags 332 associated with the at least one image selection with the client 104, and receiving 2508 profiles 102 a-n of designers 102, each designer profile 122 a-n having one or more associated tags The method further includes executing 2510 a routine on a computing processor 160, 164 that compares the tags 332 associated with the client 104 with the tags 332 associated with each designer profile 122 a-n to determine a compatibility with at least one designer 102, and displaying 2512 on the graphical user interface 162 a list 1000 of one or more compatible designers 102.”].
Regarding claim(s) 4, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 12 above and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 4 has an additional limitation(s) {the system of claim 2, wherein to filter the available designer information, the matching manager is further configured to: - claim 4}.
Modified Kumm doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Parade home & garden discloses
available designer [see at least [pg 10] “It pulls together several suggested designers based on your unique style and preferences, and gives you a percentage as to how much of a match you are. Before choosing, we were able to explore their work, browse their favorite products by style, see their expected availability and even watch videos of some of them introducing themselves.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Kumm with Parade home & garden to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Parade home & garden. Doing so would improve modified Kumm’s (Kumm) matching by further defining designer attributes to include availability [see at least Parade home & garden [pg 10] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Kumm and b) Parade home & garden and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5 and 13, modified Kumm teaches the method of claim 12 {the system of claim 4 – claim 5},
and Kumm teaches further comprising electronically introducing the user to the designers corresponding to the determined user designer identification for the top set of ranked designs [see at least [0105] “FIG. 25 provides an exemplary arrangement 2500 of operations for a method 2500 of matching a client 104 and a designer 102 for collaborative interior design. The method 2500 includes displaying 2502 on a graphical user interface 162 (FIG. 21) a series of images 330, each image having one or more associated tags 332. The method also includes receiving 2504 at least one image selection from a client 104, associating 2506 the one or more tags 332 associated with the at least one image selection with the client 104, and receiving 2508 profiles 102 a-n of designers 102, each designer profile 122 a-n having one or more associated tags The method further includes executing 2510 a routine on a computing processor 160, 164 that compares the tags 332 associated with the client 104 with the tags 332 associated with each designer profile 122 a-n to determine a compatibility with at least one designer 102, and displaying 2512 on the graphical user interface 162 a list 1000 of one or more compatible designers 102.”;
[0058] “Referring to FIG. 1B, in some implementations, the system 100 displays a client-designer matching view 1000 that allows the client 104 to choose a designer 102 from the list that the system 100 has already compiled based on the client style 110, favorite products 760, favorite design look 750, and the response to the questionnaire 610.”;
[0059] “Referring to FIG. 2, in some implementations, the system 100 allows the client 104 to interact with different designers 102 to pick his/her furniture. The system 100 provides information 106 about the different designers 102. The client 104 may select a designer 106 c and view photographs 710 c-e of designed rooms that he/she designed. In some examples, the system 100 allows the client 104 to choose and interact with different designers 102 based on his/her specific style and the location he/she lives in to determine the design that fits the personality of the client 104.”].
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624