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 08/06/2026 is entered. Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 10, 14-16, and 18-20. Claims 8 and 17 are canceled. Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 are pending for examination.
2. This is a Final Rejection.
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 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 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 1-7, and 9 are to a process comprising a series of steps, clams 10-16, and 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) obtaining, by one or more processors from a builder computing device, a floor plan specifying first dimension data for a space;
(ii) obtaining, by the one or more processors from the user computing device, Light Detection and Ranging ("LiDAR") data specifying second dimension data for the space;
(iii) determining, by the one or more processors, dimensions of the space based on the first dimension data and the second dimension data;
(iv) generating, by the one or more processors, a three-dimensional ("3D") virtual model representing 3D geometries of the space based on the determined dimensions of the space;
(v) populating, by the one or more processors, an options database by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file, wherein parsing comprises extracting, for each design option in the product catalog file, design-element dimension information, price information, availability information, delivery lead time information, and dependency information identifying a required option pairing or a prohibited option pairing, and storing the extracted information in the options database based on a data schematic;
(vi) obtaining, by the one or more processors from the user computing device, a user input specifying a design option for a design element located within the space;
(vii) determining, by the one or more processors, dimensions and placement of the design element within the 3D virtual model based on the design-element dimension information and the determined dimensions of the space;
(viii) validating, by the one or more processors and based on the dependency information stored in the options database, that the specified design option is compatible with a set of previously selected design options stored for a user design session to determine compatibility, 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
(ix) when the specified design option is compatible, generating, by a 3D rendering engine executed by the one or more processors, a rendered 3D representation of the design element based on the dimensions and placement of the design element and the determined dimensions of the space;
(x) updating, by the one or more processors, the 3D virtual model by replacing a rendered representation of a default design element with the rendered 3D representation of the design element having the specified design option;
(xi) generating, by the one or more processors, an upgrade price for the design element by retrieving pricing data associated with the specified design option from the options database; and
(xii) updating, by the one or more processors, a total price associated with the space by replacing a default- option price for the design element with the upgrade price in response to the user input and as part of the update of the 3D virtual model.
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.
Reference claim 1, the highlighted limitations comprising “ (i) obtaining a floor plan specifying first dimension data for a space; (ii) obtaining data specifying second dimension data for the space; (iii) determining dimensions of the space based on the first dimension data and the second dimension data; iv) generating a three-dimensional ("3D") model representing 3D geometries of the space based on the determined dimensions of the space; (v) populating, an options database by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file, wherein parsing comprises extracting, for each design option in the product catalog file, design-element dimension information, price information, availability information, delivery lead time information, and dependency information identifying a required option pairing or a prohibited option pairing, and storing the extracted information (vii) determining dimensions and placement of the design element within the 3D model based on the design-element dimension information and the determined dimensions of the space; (viii) validating based on the dependency information stored in the options database, that the specified design option is compatible with a set of previously selected design options stored for a user design session to determine compatibility, and when the specified design option is incompatible, inhibiting the update of the 3D model and presenting one or more compatible design options; and (ix) when the specified design option is compatible, generating, a rendered 3D representation of the design element based on the dimensions and placement of the design element and the determined dimensions of the space; (x) updating the 3D virtual model by replacing a rendered representation of a default design element with the rendered 3D representation of the design element having the specified design option; (xi) generating an upgrade price for the design element by retrieving pricing data associated with the specified design option from the options database; and (xii) updating a total price associated with the space by replacing a default- option price for the design element with the upgrade price in response to the user input and as part of the update of the 3D model.” 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, but for the recitation of “by the one or more processors”. . See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022] II. MENTAL PROCESSES: claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); • a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That is, other than reciting “by the one or more processors” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human operator can collect data on dimensions of a space where a building is to be constructed, create 1 3D model, analyze a builder provider’s catalog to create a list of design elements, prices for the design elements, lead time for the products, consider the compatibility of options with another, validate the compatible options, update the 3D model with the validated compatible options, price for specified design elements and with the upgraded price for the user inputs. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 1 with its dependent claims 2-7, and 9 recites a mental process. Since the limitations of the other two independent claims 10 and 19 are similar to the limitations of claims 10, and 19, they are analyzed on the same basis.
Accordingly, claim 1 with its dependent claims 2-7, 9; claim 10 with its dependent claims 11-16, 18; and claim 19 with its dependent claim 20 recite mental process groupings of abstract ideas (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).
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 are directed to the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of using generic computer device implementing the steps:
(i) obtaining, by one or more processors from a builder computing device, a floor plan specifying first dimension data for a space;
(ii) obtaining, by the one or more processors from the user computing device, Light Detection and Ranging ("LiDAR") data specifying second dimension data for the space;
(iii) determining, by the one or more processors, dimensions of the space based on the first dimension data and the second dimension data;
(iv) generating, by the one or more processors, a three-dimensional ("3D") virtual model representing 3D geometries of the space based on the determined dimensions of the space;
(v) populating, by the one or more processors, an options database by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file, wherein parsing comprises extracting, for each design option in the product catalog file, design-element dimension information, price information, availability information, delivery lead time information, and dependency information identifying a required option pairing or a prohibited option pairing, and storing the extracted information in the options database based on a data schematic;
(vi) obtaining, by the one or more processors from the user computing device, a user input specifying a design option for a design element located within the space;
(vii) determining, by the one or more processors, dimensions and placement of the design element within the 3D virtual model based on the design-element dimension information and the determined dimensions of the space;
(viii) validating, by the one or more processors and based on the dependency information stored in the options database, that the specified design option is compatible with a set of previously selected design options stored for a user design session to determine compatibility, 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
(ix) when the specified design option is compatible, generating, by a 3D rendering engine executed by the one or more processors, a rendered 3D representation of the design element based on the dimensions and placement of the design element and the determined dimensions of the space;
(x) updating, by the one or more processors, the 3D virtual model by replacing a rendered representation of a default design element with the rendered 3D representation of the design element having the specified design option;
(xi) generating, by the one or more processors, an upgrade price for the design element by retrieving pricing data associated with the specified design option from the options database; and
(xii) updating, by the one or more processors, a total price associated with the space by replacing a default- option price for the design element with the upgrade price in response to the user input and as part of the update of the 3D virtual model.
The limitations in steps (i), (ii), and (vi) “ (i) obtaining, by one or more processors from a builder computing device, a floor plan specifying first dimension data for a space; (ii) obtaining, by the one or more processors from the user computing device, Light Detection and Ranging ("LiDAR") data specifying second dimension data for the space; and (vi) obtaining, by the one or more processors from the user computing device, a user input specifying a design option for a design element located within the space; “ are mere data gathering related to space dimensions and a user’s input 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. 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 in step (ii) recites obtaining , dimension data via LiDAR [Light Detection and Ranging] , wherein the use of LiDAR technique is recited in a nominal manner without providing details as how the LiDAR technique is used. The recitations of LiDAR technique amounts to merely using an existing standard technique for the standard purpose of measuring and mapping a physical space, which does not reflect a technical improvement to the use of LiDAR technique or to computer functioning, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In steps (iii),(iv), (v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, above such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The use of computer for generating a virtual 3D mode from obtained LiDAR data, as recited , amounts to mere long standing practice of using an existing standard software to generate 3D virtual models from the obtained LiDAR data [See Specification para 0056, “ [0056] In some embodiments, the design objects rendered within the 3D virtual representation of the space may be generated using one or more processes. For example, the dimension data may be read by a gaming engine (e.g., the UNREAL engine or UNITY engine) to generate a design object rendering for display in the 3D virtual representation of the space within the homebuyer's GUI. For example, am image of a particular design element (e.g., a kitchen faucet) may be provided to a gaming engine which will render a set of realistic views and coalesce the views to generate a 3D image of the design element.”] , without providing details reflecting technical improvement in the functioning of the software used.
Even, when considered individually and in combination, the 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 claims 10 and 19 recites similar limitations as claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9, 11-16 and 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 merely expand the limitations considered for generating a 3D virtual model in base claims 1, and 10 using LIDAR data to modify a floor plan 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 recite displaying data based on product catalog and obtaining input data which are non-significant extra-solution activity. Claims 9, and 18 recite limitations of determining dimensions and placement of the additional design element within the 3D virtual model, generating a rendered 3D representation of the additional design element based on the dimensions and placement of the additional design element and the determined dimensions of the space, updating the 3D virtual model to include the rendered 3D representation of the additional design element in the specified design option, generating an upgrade price for the additional design element by obtaining pricing data for the additional design element in the specified design option, and updating the total price associated with the space based on the generated upgrade price of the additional design element., which are mere extension of the limitations discussed for their base claims 1 and 10 reciting mental processes and do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 20 recites a generic long standing practice of generating 3D point cloud comprising data points having three-dimensional coordinates based on the LiDAR data and converting the 3D point cloud into a 3D surface representing the space, because the limitations do not address any technical improvement in the existing technology and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Even, when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 are directed to the judicial exception. (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 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 are, as per Step 2A, 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 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer processors and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as LiDAR and generating 3D point clouds from LiDAR data . 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 recitation of using LiDAR r and generating 3D point clouds from LiDAR data techniques in a nominal manner amounts 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));
The additional elements including obtaining data was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because it was determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering . 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. 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)). 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 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 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 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 are patent ineligible.
4. Prior art discussion:
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-20:
Reference the independent claim 1, 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, “
One or more processors executing the steps of obtaining from the user computing device Light Detection and Ranging ("LiDAR") data specifying second dimension data for the space, determining dimensions of the space based on the floor plan for the space and the second dimension data, generating a three-dimensional ("3D") virtual model representing 3D geometries of the space based on the determined dimensions of the space, populating an options database by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file, wherein parsing comprises extracting, for each design option in the product catalog file, design-element dimension information, price information, availability information, delivery lead time information, and dependency information identifying a required option pairing or a prohibited option pairing, and storing the extracted information in the options database based on a data schematic, when the specified design option is compatible, generating by a 3D rendering engine a rendered 3D representation of the design element based on the dimensions and placement of the design element and the determined dimensions of the space, updating the 3D virtual model by replacing a rendered representation of a default design element with the rendered 3D representation of the design element having the specified design option, generating an upgrade price for the design element by retrieving pricing data associated with the specified design option from the options database, and updating a total price associated with the space by replacing a default- option price for the design element with the upgrade price in response to the user input and as part of the update of the 3D virtual model . Claims 2-7, and 9 depend from base claim 1. Limitations of the other independent claims 10 and 19 are similar to those discussed for claim 1 and claims 11-16, 18 depend from claim 10, and 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) Powers et al cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/23/2025 [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.
(ii) Samson et al cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/23/2025 [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:
(iii) Li W.; “ 3D Virtual Modeling Realizations of Building Construction Scenes via Deep Learning Technique”; . Comput Intell Neurosci. 2022 Mar 31;2022:6286420 retrieved from IP. Com on 009082026 describes [see page 4) making a three-dimensional reconstruction model of a construction site based on real-time acquisition of multiview pictures, camera internal and external parameters, and data matching in formation from the construction site, through features extraction, construction cost matching, depth estimation optimization, and point cloud model fusion technologies.
Foreign references
(iv) KR 20110096458 A [see Abstract] describes a simulation method for arranging API equipment in a construction site, a drawing made in three dimensions by using a ground lidar data surveyed at a construction site and an actual design drawing of the construction site. After uploading the data and the numerical map of the construction site on the program of the computer, the system virtually places the commercialized AP equipment (AP, Access Point) on the uploaded construction site,
(v) CN 106033478 A cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/23/2025 [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 08/06/2026, see pages 16-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One :
Examiner has fully reviewed the Applicant’s arguments on pages 17-20, and they are not persuasive. Step 2A Prong 1 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. Claim’s limitations are to be examined individually and analyzed if they “set forth” or “describe” abstract ideas.
Referring to claim 1, as exemplary, the limitations in steps “ (i) obtaining a floor plan ….; (ii) obtaining data specifying second dimension data for the space; (iii) determining dimensions of the space ……; iv) generating a three-dimensional ("3D") model ……. (v) populating, an options database by parsing a builder-provided product catalog file, ….. (vii) determining dimensions and placement of the design element within ………; (viii) validating based on the dependency information stored in the options database; and (ix) when the specified design option is compatible, generating, a rendered 3D representation of the design element …..; (x) updating the 3D virtual model by replacing …….; (xi) generating an upgrade price for the design element ……; and (xii) updating a total price associated with the space by replacing a default- option price ……...” 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 using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “by the one or more processors”, as analyzed in detail above in paragraph 3. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022] II. MENTAL PROCESSES: claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); • a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That is, other than reciting “by the one or more processors” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Applicant’s arguments directed to use of LiDAR data and using a computer software to generate a 3D model are the additional elements which ate considered under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Examiner has fully reviewed the Applicant’s arguments on pages 20-23, and they are not persuasive, because the additional elements when considered individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, “ Specifically, the amended claims require: " determining dimensions of a physical space using both floor-plan dimension data and LiDAR-derived dimension data; " using catalog-derived design-element dimension information in connection with the determined dimensions of the physical space; " determining placement of the design element within the 3D virtual model; " generating the rendered representation based on the design-element dimensions, design-element placement, and determined space dimensions; and " replacing a rendered default design element with the newly generated”, and based on them argues that “the ordered combination provides a concrete technical application”, “ the model update is not merely displaying a result”, and other arguments on pages 20-23 have been fully reviewed and considered but they are not persuasive. Step 2A, Prong Two 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). The additional elements in steps (i), (ii), and (iii) have been analyzed , see para 3 above and they were found not to add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The steps are performed by one or more processors recited at a high level of generality performing non-significant extra-solution activity of obtaining data on dimensions of a construction site/space . The limitations in step (ii) recites obtaining , dimension data via LiDAR [Light Detection and Ranging] , wherein the use of LiDAR technique is recited in a nominal manner without providing details as how the LiDAR technique is used. The recitations of LiDAR technique amounts to merely using an existing standard technique for the standard purpose of measuring and mapping a physical space, which does not reflect a technical improvement to the use of LiDAR technique or to computer functioning, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In steps (iii),(iv), (v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, above such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The use of computer for generating a virtual 3D mode from obtained LiDAR data, as recited , amounts to mere long standing practice of using an existing standard software to generate 3D virtual models from the obtained LiDAR data [See Specification para 0056, “ [0056] In some embodiments, the design objects rendered within the 3D virtual representation of the space may be generated using one or more processes. For example, the dimension data may be read by a gaming engine (e.g., the UNREAL engine or UNITY engine) to generate a design object rendering for display in the 3D virtual representation of the space within the homebuyer's GUI. For example, am image of a particular design element (e.g., a kitchen faucet) may be provided to a gaming engine which will render a set of realistic views and coalesce the views to generate a 3D image of the design element.”] .
Thus, the use of LiDAR data and building 3Dvirtual models, as recited in claims without providing details reflecting technical improvement amounts 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));.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive, and as detailed in paragraph 3 above, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: Examiner has fully reviewed the Applicant’s arguments on pages 23-25, and they are not persuasive, because, even when considered in combination, these additional elements 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. The applicant’s arguments refer to similar arguments with special emphasis on use of obtained LiDAR data and using it for building a 3D virtual model and they have been already replied to in the analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two, as obtaining dimension data for a space and building 3D virtual models using standard existing software, without providing details reflecting technical improvement amounts 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)).
In view of the foregoing, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and their dependent claims under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained. Applicant has not filed separate arguments for dependent claims, except that they fall and rise with their independent claims.
Conclusion
7. 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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights