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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial office action based on the application filed on April 15th, 2024, which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claims 1, 11, and 18 are presented in independent form.
Internet E-mail
A written authorization by Applicant is required for the Examiner to respond via
internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the
confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U3.0. 122, such as proposed Examiner’s
Amendments or interview agenda items (MPEP 502.03; See Internet Usage Policy, 64
PR 33056 (June 21, 1999)). To authorize e-mail communications from the Examiner
(e.g. proposed Examiner’s Amendments), the Applicant must place a written
authorization in the record. Applicant may authorize electronic and email communication
by the Examiner via PTO Automated Interview Request web service. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AER) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on April 15th, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. The complied IDS has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 11, and 18 recite the limitation “the particular configuration type of the of the second user selection” in lines 16-17, 19-20, and 18-19, respectively, which contains a typographical error. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “the particular configuration type [[of the]] of the second user selection” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20: are dependent on claims 1, 11, and 18, respectively, but not cure the deficiencies of those claims. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a system provider” and “a user device” in claims 1, 11, and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 11-17 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claims 18-20 is directed to non-transitory machine-readable medium and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1, 11, and 18: recite the limitations of “
providing, by a system provider device, a first webpage rendered by a web browser of a user device, the first webpage displaying a plurality of product types corresponding to a particular system type;
receiving, by the system provider device, a first user selection of a particular product type of the plurality of product types via the first webpage,
the first user selection causing the web browser of the user device to render a second webpage in the web browser, the second webpage displaying a plurality of configuration types corresponding to the particular product type of the first user selection, and the second webpage including a visual element corresponding to each of the plurality of configuration types; and
receiving, by the system provider device, a second user selection of a particular configuration type of the plurality of configuration types via the second webpage,
the second user selection causing the web browser of the user device to render a third webpage in the web browser, the third webpage displaying a product detail page corresponding to the particular configuration type of the of the second user selection, the product detail page including the visual element corresponding to the particular configuration type of the second user selection, a configuration summary section, a documents section, and a configuration options panel,
the second user selection further causing the system provider device to automatically provide an architectural specification accessible via a first link provided within the documents section of the product detail page when the third webpage is rendered.”
Step 2A Prong 1:
Steps (a), (b), and (d) as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 11, and 18: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - “system provider device,” “webpage,” “web browser,” “user device” “product detail page,” “animatable image ,” “mouse pointer,” “a computer-aided design (CAD) file, and a building information modeling (BIM) file,” “system,” “a non-transitory memory storing instructions,” “one or more hardware processor,” and “non-transitory machine-readable medium”, which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, steps (c), (e) and (f) are merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 11, and 18 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 11, and 18: The additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 11, and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 19, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the architectural specification accessible via the first link includes a semi-customized architectural specification having a fixed template portion and a dynamic portion, the dynamic portion populated with a default set of common configuration options.” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 2, 12, and 19 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2, 12, and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 12, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 20, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the visual element includes an animatable image that is animated upon hovering a mouse pointer over the animatable image” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 3, 13, and 20 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3, 13, and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, they recite additional element recitations of “prior to receiving the second user selection of the particular configuration type, receiving, by the system provider device, a third user selection of a second link to a generic architectural specification, the second link provided within the second webpage, the generic architectural specification corresponding to the particular product type of the first user selection, the generic architectural specification including a fully-editable document including each configuration type and each configuration option, associated with the particular product type, available for selection by a user of the user device” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 4 and 14 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 14 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 8, it recites additional element recitations of “prior to receiving the first user selection of the particular product type, accessing, by the system provider device, project information, wherein the second webpage displays at least one configuration type, of the plurality of configuration types, that is compatible with the accessed project information; and receiving, by the system provider device, the second user selection of the particular configuration type, the particular configuration type including the at least one configuration type that is compatible with the accessed project information” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 8 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9, it recites additional element recitations of “wherein the documents section of the product detail page further includes respective links to an architectural details document, a computer-aided design (CAD) file, and a building information modeling (BIM) file corresponding to the particular configuration type” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 9 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The combination of claims 5+6+7+10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ames et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0354457) discloses an intelligent construction structure planning system (also referred to as “intelligent construction structure planner”). In some embodiments, the intelligent construction structure planner disclosed herein is configured to automatically design panels from a list of locations and types of walls, doors, and windows with no human input, and automatically design panels conforming to the specification of any particular building code (e.g., choose headers and start spacing based on load requirements, add triple studs to support second stories, etc.). In some embodiments, the intelligent construction structure planner further optimizes a cost function that allows users to prioritize different aspects of the building during the automated panelization process. In some embodiments, the intelligent construction structure planner also integrates features to assist with later steps in the structure-building process, such as pre-cut holes for electrical wiring, integrating with plumbing requirements, and integrating with HVAC requirements, all of which can be done without requiring additional inputs from designers.
Kumar et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0018911) discloses a technology that can used for architecting products, services, software, systems, product-service systems and the digital product or digital service systems, provides for integration mechanisms to develop a unified architecture from the individual architectures pertaining to products, services, systems and software, provides for a single architecting approach that is applicable for the different knowledge domains involved, and provides for architecting across the different knowledge domains comprising digital products, digital services, digital systems and software.
Kim et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0040791) discloses a platform for software as a service (SaaS) application development and customization in a multi-tenant environment. An interface template is defined based on application metadata. Application metadata may comprise and/or be based upon tenant metadata (e.g., via transformation). A desired graphical user interface is rendered based on the interface template. The desired graphical user interface may be edited by the tenant. An SaaS application for the tenant based on the desired graphical user interface is generated. A tenant data service is processed using the SaaS application. The SaaS application is provided to at least one other tenant in the multi-tenant environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 March 7th, 2026