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 .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 12/23/2025 is entered. Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
Claims 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites limitations:
(i) generating an upgrade price for the design element by obtaining pricing data for the design element in the specified design option from an options database populated by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file that includes, for each design option,(i) price information, and (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing; validating, using the dependency information, that the specified design option is compatible with one or more other design options already selected for the space, and when the specified design option is incompatible, inhibiting the update of the 3D virtual model and presenting one or more compatible design options.
The limitations, “ by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file that includes, for each design option,(i) price information, and (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing”, as drafted includes alternatives for design options (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing, which , under its reasonable interpretation , covers choosing either availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing. If the availability information, delivery lead time information option is chosen then the other feature or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing is not required and the limitations “ validating, using the dependency information, that the specified design option is compatible with one or more other design options already selected for the space, and when the specified design option is incompatible, inhibiting the update of the 3D virtual model and presenting one or more compatible design options.”, further narrowing the unselected option renders the scope of claim 1 indefinite.
Since the other independent claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 1, it is analyzed on the same basis as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Since the dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 inherit the deficiency of their base claims 1 and 10, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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--20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-9 are to a process comprising a series of steps, clams 10-18 to a system /apparatus, and claims 19-20 to manufacture, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implement method for processing user input in a three-dimensional virtual model, comprising:
(i) generating a three-dimensional ("3D") virtual model representing three- dimensional ("3D") geometries of a space based on a plurality of three-dimensional ("3D") images of the space;
(ii) obtaining, from a user computing device, a user input specifying a design option for a design element located within the space;
(iii) updating the 3D virtual model by displaying a modified 3D virtual model, wherein the modified 3D virtual model comprises an image of the design element having the specified design option;
(iv) generating an upgrade price for the design element by obtaining pricing data for the design element in the specified design option from an options database populated by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file that includes, for each design option,(i) price information, and (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing;
(v) validating, using the dependency information, that the specified design option is compatible with one or more other design options already selected for the space, and when the specified design option is incompatible, inhibiting the update of the 3D virtual model and presenting one or more compatible design options; and
(vi) updating a total price associated with the space based on the generated upgrade price of the design element by replacing a default-option price for the design element with an upgraded-option price for the specified design option.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-20 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations comprising, " generating an upgrade price for the design element by obtaining pricing data for the design element in the specified design option from options, by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file that includes, for each design option, (i) price information, and (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing; validating, using the dependency information, that the specified design option is compatible with one or more other design options already selected for the space, and when the specified design option is incompatible, inhibiting the update of the 3D model and updating a total price associated with the space based on the generated upgrade price of the design element by replacing a default-option price for the design element with an upgraded-option price for the specified design option.“ under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a human operator can estimate and generate an upgrade price by considering a number of available options, such as pricing information, availability and delivery information and the dependency options that if the options can be paired or prohibited, and further confirming/validating the dependency option compatibility with the selected design options and if any of the option is incompatible then consider only the compatible options. Parsing catalog file can be done in human mind which comprises breaking down the catalog data into smaller quantity and analyze it. Further, the human operator can replace a default price option by the upgraded -option price for the specified design option. Though the preamble recites a “computer implemented method”, the individual limitations considered above do not recite being executed by a processor. Even if these limitations recite using a generic processor such as in the other independent claim 10 to execute these limitations, nothing in these claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9 recite a mental process. Since the other independent claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 1, claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-18 are analyzed on the same basis reciting a mental process
Claims 19-20:
Claim 19 recites:
19. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions for generating a three-dimensional virtual model, which when executed by one or more computing devices, cause at least one of the one or more computing devices to:
(i) obtain, from a builder computing device, a product catalog file specifying information on design options associated with design elements, and a floor plan file specifying information about a space in a building;
(ii) parse the product catalog file to extract design raw data associated with the information on default design options for the design elements, and
(iii) parsing the floor plan file to extract space raw data associated with the information about the space in the building, wherein the extracted design raw data and space raw data is uploaded to a datastore; and
(iv) generate a three-dimensional ("3D") virtual model representing three-dimensional geometries of the space with design elements based on extracted space raw data and design raw data;
(v) wherein the product catalog file includes, for at least a subset of the design options, (i) pricing information, and (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing, and
(vi) wherein parsing the product catalog file includes using a machine learning model trained on historic product catalog files to classify and map fields in a previously unseen file format into a standardized options schema stored in the datastore.
The highlighted limitations in claim 19 comprising, " parse the product catalog file to extract design raw data associated with the information on default design options for the design elements, and parsing the floor plan file to extract space raw data associated with the information about the space in the building and wherein parsing the product catalog file includes historic product catalog files to classify and map fields in a previously unseen file format into a standardized options schema stored”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The general meaning of parsing data is analyzing data and break data into a useable format. A human operator can parse /analyze and break into useable format the product catalog floor plan files including old historic catalog files to obtain information and classify and map fields in a previously unseen file format into a standardized options on the space in the building such as walls and the objects to be included in the space. ”. That is, other than reciting “by a computing device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Creating a standardized options schema under its broadest reasonable interpretation , covers a common set of rules for organizing and validating data, which can be performed manually using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a computer device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 19 and its dependent claim 20 recite a mental process.
Claims 1-20 : (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of using generic computer device implementing the steps:
(i)generating a three-dimensional ("3D") virtual model representing three- dimensional ("3D") geometries of a space based on a plurality of three-dimensional ("3D") images of the space; (ii)obtaining, from a user computing device, a user input specifying a design option for a design element located within the space; (iii) updating the 3D virtual model by displaying a modified 3D virtual model, wherein the modified 3D virtual model comprises an image of the design element having the specified design option; (iv) generating an upgrade price for the design element by obtaining pricing data for the design element in the specified design option from an options database populated by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file that includes, for each design option,(i) price information, and (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing; (v) validating, using the dependency information, that the specified design option is compatible with one or more other design options already selected for the space, and when the specified design option is incompatible, inhibiting the update of the 3D virtual model and presenting one or more compatible design options; and (vi)updating a total price associated with the space based on the generated upgrade price of the design element by replacing a default-option price for the design element with an upgraded-option price for the specified design option.
The limitations “(ii)obtaining, from a user computing device, a user input specifying a design option for a design element located within the space” are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations, “(i)generating a three-dimensional ("3D") virtual model representing three-dimensional ("3D") geometries of a space based on a plurality of three-dimensional ("3D") images of the space”, is generic computer function of generating 3D virtual digital models of objects and, as recited , does not reflect any technical improvement creating 3D virtual models.
The limitations, “(iii) updating the 3D virtual model by displaying a modified 3D virtual model, wherein the modified 3D virtual model comprises an image of the design element having the specified design option;”, are directed to displaying a modified 3D virtual model which after modification comprises an image of received design element , is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the modified 3D virtual/digital model resulting from incorporating an image to the model ) and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. The act of manipulating a virtual 3D virtual model by incorporating data is a generic computer function and, as recited , does not reflect any technical improvement in modifying 3D virtual models.
In limitations (iv) generating an upgrade price for the design element by obtaining pricing data for the design element in the specified design option from an options database populated by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file that includes, for each design option,(i) price information, and (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing; (v) validating, using the dependency information, that the specified design option is compatible with one or more other design options already selected for the space, and when the specified design option is incompatible, inhibiting the update of the 3D virtual model and presenting one or more compatible design options; and (vi)updating a total price associated with the space based on the generated upgrade price of the design element by replacing a default-option price for the design element with an upgraded-option price for the specified design option”, are performed by a generic computer device and as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In step (iv) the element of retrieving options stored from a data base and in step (v) the step of presenting one or more compatible design options are mere data gathering and outputting/displaying are mere data gathering and outputting/displaying recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In these limitations the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving and outputting/presenting/displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea. Since limitations of the independent claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 1, it is analyzed on the same basis as directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites the additional elements of using generic computer device implementing the steps:
(i)obtain, from a builder computing device, a product catalog file specifying information on design options associated with design elements, and a floor plan file specifying information about a space in a building; (ii)parse the product catalog file to extract design raw data associated with the information on default design options for the design elements, and (iii)parsing the floor plan file to extract space raw data associated with the information about the space in the building, wherein the extracted design raw data and space raw data is uploaded to a datastore; and (iv)generate a three-dimensional ("3D") virtual model representing three-dimensional geometries of the space with design elements based on extracted space raw data and design raw data; (v)wherein the product catalog file includes, for at least a subset of the design options, (i) pricing information, and (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing, and (vi)wherein parsing the product catalog file includes using a machine learning model trained on historic product catalog files to classify and map fields in a previously unseen file format into a standardized options schema stored in the datastore.
The limitations “(i)obtain, from a builder computing device, a product catalog file specifying information on design options associated with design elements, and a floor plan file specifying information about a space in a building;” (ii) wherein the extracted design raw data and space raw data is uploaded to a datastore”, and “(vi) “standardized options schema stored in the datastore” ;, are mere data gathering and output/transmitting and storing recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution and post solution insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, outputting/ transmitting/ storing data , and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In limitations “ (ii) parse the product catalog file to extract design raw data associated with the information on default design options for the design elements, (iii) parsing the floor plan file to extract space raw data associated with the information about the space in the building, wherein the extracted design raw data and space raw data is uploaded to a datastore, and (vi)wherein parsing the product catalog file includes using a machine learning model trained on historic product catalog files to classify and map fields in a previously unseen file format into a standardized options schema stored in the datastore.”, as recited the computer device is used do perform an abstract idea , as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The judicial exception of “parsing the product catalog file includes using a machine learning model trained on historic product catalog files to classify and map fields in a previously unseen file format into a standardized options schema stored in the datastore” is performed “using the trained MLM [a machine learning model].” The trained MLM is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained MLM functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “parsing the product catalog files and classifying” and do not include any details about how the “parsing and classifying are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “using a trained MLM” also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a trained MLM” limits the identified judicial exceptions “parsing the product catalog file includes using a machine learning model trained on historic product catalog files to classify and map fields in a previously unseen file format into a standardized options schema ”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning trained) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Limitations in step (iv) generate a three-dimensional ("3D") virtual model representing three-dimensional geometries of the space with design elements based on extracted space raw data and design raw data is a generic computer function of generating 3D virtual digital models of objects based on received/available data and, as recited , does not reflect any technical improvement creating 3D virtual models.
Limitations in step “(v) wherein the product catalog file includes, for at least a subset of the design options, (i) pricing information, and (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing.”, are mere non-functional descriptive subject matter and does not amount to any meaningful activity.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1, 10, and 19 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20:
Dependent claims 2-4 and 11-13 recite describing a user input, the space, and the design element , which amount to non-functional descriptive subject matter. Claims 5-6, and 14-15 and 19 merely expand the limitations considered for generating a 3D virtual model which are generic computer functions and as recited do not reflect any technical improvement related to generating a 3D virtual model of an object. Claims 7, 9 and 16, 18 recite displaying data and obtaining data which are non-significant extra-solution activity. Claims 8, 9, and 17-18 recite steps of upgrading price and updating the price which are mental processes reciting abstract idea.
Accordingly, even individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 1 -20 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The additional elements including obtaining data, outputting/transmitting/uploading/ storing data were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/transmitting /outputting/displaying /presenting/storing data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying /presenting / data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The limitations generating a 3D virtual model from received data was considered generic computer function, and amounted to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). For example, reference EP 3360506 A1 [See page 5 under the head Detailed Description of embodiments of the invention: “ As known to the man skilled in the art, such software is a CAD/CAM software, implemented by algorithms able to recreate a three-dimensional virtual space within which it is possible to manipulate and/or modify the reconstructions acquired to create virtual models and subsequently realize physical models of said virtual models.”] teaches using CAD/CAM software to create 3D virtual models of objects before the claimed invention. Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps and creating 3D virtual models of objects are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
4. Prior art discussion:
Claims 1-18:
Reference the independent claims 1 and 10, the prior art of record Gifford [US 20210365602A1 cited in the IDS filed 06/14/2024] in view of Young et al. [US 20140032397 A1], hereinafter Young cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/23/2025 teaches and renders obvious the limitations, as analyzed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/23/2025 a computer-implement method for processing user input in a three-dimensional virtual model, comprising: generating a three-dimensional ("3D") virtual model representing three- dimensional ("3D") geometries of a space based on a plurality of three-dimensional ("3D") images of the space; obtaining, from a user computing device, a user input specifying a design option for a design element located within the space; updating the 3D virtual model by displaying a modified 3D virtual model, wherein the modified 3D virtual model comprises an image of the design element having the specified design option; generating an upgrade price for the design element by obtaining pricing data for the design element in the specified design option and updating a total price associated with the space based on the generated upgrade price of the design element. However, Gifford in view of Young neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations comprising, “ from an options database populated by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file that includes, for each design option,(i) price information, and (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing; validating, using the dependency information, that the specified design option is compatible with one or more other design options already selected for the space, and when the specified design option is incompatible, inhibiting the update of the 3D virtual model and resenting one or more compatible design options; and by replacing a default-option price for the design element with an upgraded-option price for the specified design option” [claims 2-9 and 11-18 depend from base claims 1 and 10 respectively].
Reference claims 19-20
Reference the independent claim 19, the prior art of record Gifford [US 20210365602A1 cited in the IDS filed 06/14/2024] and cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/23/2025 teaches the limitations, as analyzed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/23/2025, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions for generating a three-dimensional virtual model [See paras 0042, 0046, 0048, 0059, and 0083 which describe generating a virtual 3D model geometry analysis of a room based on 3D visual representations [corresponds to the claimed images of the space], which when executed by one or more computing devices, cause at least one of the one or more computing devices to: obtain, from a builder computing device, a product catalog file specifying information on design options associated with design elements (read from manufacture catalog/list of available optional equipment specifications [ see paras 0056, 0061, 0067-0069, which describe , receiving product catalog file from a builder/vendor computing device], and a floor plan file specifying information about a space in a building [See paras 0037-0038, 0043-0045, 0083, which describe that the virtual model geometrics are derived from dimensions of a CAD floorplan (corresponds to a floorplan file) designed by a building construction designer (corresponds to a builder)]; parse the product catalog file to extract design data associated with the information on default design options for the design elements [See paras 0039, 0071-0072, which describe extracting the file design specifications defining pre-stored (corresponds to default) design rule options for the elements], and parsing the floor plan file to extract space data associated with the information about the space in the building, wherein the extracted design raw data and space raw data is uploaded to a datastore [See paras 0043, 0075, 0081 which describe reading the file to derive preliminary space layout data accessed and retrieved (corresponds to uploaded) from storage (corresponds to datastore)]; and generate a three-dimensional "3D" virtual model representing three-dimensional geometries of the space with design elements based on extracted space raw data and design raw data (See paras 0039-0043, 0048, and 0071-0081 which describe generating a 3D virtual model layout of geometries with equipment (design elements) specified by the space and design data. Gifford, alone or combined, fails to teach or render obvious at least the limitations comprising wherein the product catalog file includes, for at least a subset of the design options, (i) pricing information, and (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing, and wherein parsing the product catalog file includes using a machine learning model trained on historic product catalog files to classify and map fields in a previously unseen file format into a standardized options schema stored in the datastore. [Claim 20 depends from claim 19].
5. The other prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Moss [US Patent 8,650,067 B1; col.10, line 65—col.11, line 21 describes that an estimate of new construction cost for new construction values such as decks, upgrades, bonus rooms, garages, pools, basements, outbuildings are added to the value of homes.
(ii) Powers et al. [US 20180374276 A1; see paras 0048, 0060] and 0123, Figs 15-21 describes a home designer could utilize a 3D model of a physical environment , such as a home, to generate 3D virtual representations to generate upgrades and additions , such as adding additional walkthroughs or garages which could increase the value of the building/home.
(iii) Samson et al. [US 2015/0324940A1; see Abstract and paras 0032, and 0059] describes a 3D computerized interactive construction estimating system ERP/3D for building construction projects and services, wherein the ERP system manages selection and placement of interior elements of the modular home and customizations or upgrades to the interior elements of the modular home with estimated pricing. The customization feature includes a virtual representation of the home exterior using 3D graphics to illustrate the home that the user is designing and customizing, wherein the virtual representation of the home exterior is shown in an interactive, movable, three-dimensional computer graphics model that is a detailed virtual replica of the actual, intended home to be constructed.
NPL reference:
(iv) N. A. B. A. Halim and A. W. B. Ismail, "ARHome: Object Selection and Manipulation using Raycasting Technique with 3D-model Tracking in Handheld Augmented Reality," 2021 IEEE 6th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA), Arad, Romania, 2021, pp. 254-259, retrieved from IP. Com on 09/18/2025 describes [See page 2] describes that ARHome,, which is an application, enables the user to interact with the virtual object in designing the structure for the interior design of a virtual house.
Foreign reference
(v) CN 106033478 A [See Abstract] describes a method for designing and building matching furniture for a desired space, storing these models and arranging the three-dimensional models in a virtual three-dimensional coordinate space of a 3D house type scene, counting all material models needed by all three-dimensional models in the virtual three-dimensional coordinate space and total number.
Response to Arguments
6.1. Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025, see pages 9-11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One :
Examiner has fully reviewed the Applicant’s on pages 9-10 “As amended, the claims require retrieving pricing from an options database populated by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file that includes availability, delivery lead time, and dependency rules, then validating option compatibility using those dependency rules, and conditionally inhibiting the 3D model update when the option is incompatible. These steps require machine processing of structured option records and rule enforcement across multiple selected options in a live session. They are not "mere observation" or "mere comparison." They are specific computer-side data processing and control of an interactive rendering and configuration workflow. Independent claim 19 further requires using a machine learning model trained on historic product catalog files to classify and map fields from a previously unseen file format into a standardized options schema stored in a datastore. This is a concrete data-normalization technique applied to a specific technical problem, namely ingesting heterogeneous builder catalog inputs and converting them into a standardized format usable by the system.”, and respectfully disagrees.
Step 2A, Prong One analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As analyzed above in paragraph 3, claims 1-18 recite limitations, “ generating an upgrade price for the design element …..,; validating, using the dependency information, that the specified design option is compatible with one or more other design options …… and updating a total price associated with the space based on the generated upgrade price of the design element by replacing a default-option price for the design element with an upgraded-option price for the specified design option.“ which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Reference claims 19-20, the claims recite limitations, “ parse the product catalog file to extract design raw data associated with the information ….. and wherein parsing the product catalog file includes historic product catalog files to classify and map fields in a previously unseen file format into a standardized options schema stored”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III, see detail analysis in paragraph 3 above.
In view of the foregoing, claims 1-20 “set forth” and “describe” limitations falling within Mental Processes.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Examiner has fully reviewed the Applicant’s arguments on page 10, “ Even if any portion of the claim could be described at a high level, the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The amended claims recite a specific, end-to-end technical workflow that transforms builder-supplied catalog files into a standardized options database, then uses that database to drive interactive 3D visualization updates and quote updates while enforcing dependency rules and surfacing availability or lead time constraints. This is not "data gathering" followed by "displaying results." The workflow improves how the system operates in a design-and-quote environment by preventing incompatible selections, constraining menus to compatible options, and updating price using the standardized options schema rather than ad hoc estimates. This is a practical application in an interactive 3D rendering system that must synchronize (i) catalog data ingestion, (ii) option compatibility enforcement, and (iii) real-time visualization and quote updates. “, which are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong Two. eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As an illustrative example, the applicant’s arguments relate to the additional elements in steps iv, v and vi (iv)” generating an upgrade price for the design element ….. from an options database populated by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file that includes, for each design option,(i) price information, and (ii) at least one of availability information, delivery lead time information, or dependency information that identifies a required or prohibited option pairing; (v) validating, using the dependency information, that the specified design option is compatible with one or more other design options already selected for the space, and when the specified design option is incompatible, inhibiting the update of the 3D virtual model and presenting one or more compatible design options; and (vi)updating a total price associated with the space based on the generated upgrade price of the design element by replacing a default-option price for the design element with an upgraded-option price for the specified design option”, which are performed by a generic computer device. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations of claim 19, comprising, “ (ii) parse the product catalog file to extract design raw data associated with the information on default design options for the design elements, (iii) parsing the floor plan file to extract space raw data associated with the information about the space in the building, wherein the extracted design raw data and space raw data is uploaded to a datastore, and (vi)wherein parsing the product catalog file includes using a machine learning model trained on historic product catalog files to classify and map fields in a previously unseen file format into a standardized options schema stored in the datastore.”, as recited the computer device is used do perform an abstract idea. As discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, in paragraph 3 above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The judicial exception of “parsing the product catalog file includes using a machine learning model trained on historic product catalog files to classify and map fields in a previously unseen file format into a standardized options schema stored in the datastore” is performed “using the trained MLM [a machine learning model].” The trained MLM is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained MLM functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “parsing the product catalog files and classifying” and do not include any details about how the “parsing and classifying are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “using a trained MLM” also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a trained MLM” limits the identified judicial exceptions “parsing the product catalog file includes using a machine learning model trained on historic product catalog files to classify and map fields ”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning trained) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements referred to in the Applicant’s arguments do not integrate the abstract idea recited in the claims 1, 10, and 19 into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Examiner has fully reviewed the Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11, “ The additional elements in the amended claims also provide an inventive concept. The claims recite more than using generic CAD tools. They require (i) building an options database by parsing builder catalog files, including files in previously unseen formats, (ii) ML-based classification and mapping into a standardized options schema, and (iii) enforcing dependency constraints during 3D model updates. This ordered combination is not routine, conventional, or well-understood. It provides a concrete improvement in the operation of a computer system that must ingest heterogeneous catalog inputs and reliably generate compatible options and accurate quotes in real time. For at least the reasons above, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 (and its corresponding system claim) is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the §101 rejection and allowance of the pending claim. “, which are not persuasive. The Step 2B, Prong Two eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The additional elements including obtaining data, outputting/transmitting/uploading/ storing data were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying /presenting / data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The limitations generating a 3D virtual model from received data was considered generic computer function, and amounted to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). For example, reference EP 3360506 A1 [See page 5 under the head Detailed Description of embodiments of the invention: “ As known to the man skilled in the art, such software is a CAD/CAM software, implemented by algorithms able to recreate a three-dimensional virtual space within which it is possible to manipulate and/or modify the reconstructions acquired to create virtual models and subsequently realize physical models of said virtual models.”] teaches using CAD/CAM software to create 3D virtual models of objects before the claimed invention. Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps and creating 3D virtual models of objects are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Even when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
6.2. Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-14, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the current amendments to the independent claims 1, 10, and 19. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 and 35 USC 102 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
7. This is a Final Rejection:
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 YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688