Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claim
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, and 16-20 have been amended.
Claims 2, 7, 10, and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-24 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-14, and 16-24 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that designing a building is a technical act it is not a method of organizing human activity. Further, the applicant asserts that the methods recited in claim 1 as currently amended are designed only for use by a computer, and are not be feasible or practical for performing purely manually, by a human expert. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Some limitations are drawn to profit and loss (P&L) forecast for each multiple building design. That falls squarely within the commercial interact such as sales activities or behavior or business relations aspect of certain methods of organizing human activity. The examiner reminds applicant that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, multiple building designs is interpreted to be at least 2, hence designing buildings/structures and forecasting P&L for a building project/design is not rooted in computer technology, in fact it was performed by humans long before the advent of the internet either mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Consequently, the invention remains an abstract idea under 2A prong I.
Applicant asserts that even if the process could be considered to be an abstract mental process, the invention is limited to a practical application in a specific field, i.e., designing a structure with a core. The examiner respectfully disagrees. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited art documented by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in claims 1 and 14 nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. In particular, generating multiple options for a main structure compliant with building constraints that include multiple building cores, and outputting multiple building designs for each of the multiple options for a main structure. Therefore, pending claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-14, and 16-24 are distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
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, 3-6, 8-9, 11-14, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 14 recites “an online database including data on building constraints, data on an intended use, and data on profitability of building management; and a processor programmed for generating, via a computer, multiple building core options and multiple options for a main structure compliant to the building constraints for each said building core option and each main structure option generating multiple building plans incorporating multiple building constraints; outputting, via the computer, multiple building designs for each of said multiple options for a main structure each of said multiple building designs fitting for said intended use; predicting, via the computer, long-term costs and profits of each of the multiple building designs; and designing the building according to an optimized profitability among the multiple building designs”. Claim 1 discloses similar limitations as Claim 14, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1 and 14 are directed to “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 16-24 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1 and 14 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1 and 14 recite additional elements underlined and boldened above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element underlined and boldened above reflects insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1 and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional element described above. This is a generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶92-94 (PG Pub) "computer program code for carrying out operations for some embodiments of the present invention may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object-oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the "C"programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider). Some embodiments of the present invention may be described below with reference to flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems) and computer program products according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks”. Further, additional elements for data storage does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the elements reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception that are well-understood, routine, and conventional data retrieval and transmission functions in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
As a result, claims 1 and 14 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 16-24 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 01/22/2026
Prosecution Insights