DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 27 April 2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of application number 18/902377. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 27 April 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 15, and 17.
Amendments to claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 15, and 17 are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1 – 20 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims do not recite an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Determining building materials needed to be sold is a marketing and business activity, which is a sub category under certain methods of organizing human activity. Writing out a contextualized list and visual representation of that breakdown is certainly a business activity as well, and is also a mental process, which is another abstract idea grouping. Applicant’s remarks describe how they have recognition of types and quantities of items beyond human mental capability, but this is essentially an inventory problem, and one that has existed prior to any technology applied to it. Converting one set of data into another set of data is not a machine-transformation as Applicant argues. Rather, Examiner’s position is that there is only data conversion from one format to another, which is not a machine-transformation as it does not involve technology.
In the remarks regarding the prior art rejection, Applicant argues that Ikezawa does not teach the newly amended claims. Examiner agrees. The prior art rejection is withdrawn.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite receiving a planning document of a construction project the planning document including a floor plan, a blueprint, or a computer-aided design (CAD) drawing that describes, according to formats used for building constructions, physical locations and dimensions for building one or more retail stores that each have multiple aisles for displaying retail items belonging to multiple departments, extracting, from the planning document, a set of items to be used in the construction project based on parsing one or more drawings in the planning document to determine (1) building materials along with (2) fixtures and (3) non-fixtures of items not sold in the one or more retail stores, receiving item demand data associated with an item used in determining demand for the item, receiving a user input associated with the item used in determining the demand for the item, generating a forecast of item demand for the item based on item demand data and the user input, and transmitting a notice to a supply chain system to acquire the item based on the forecast. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the system and the method are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of receiving data and determining demand and transmitting a notice to a supply chain system, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106, as these claimed functions fall into the subcategory of commercial activities. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping, as independent claims describe receiving data and analysis. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are receiving a planning document of a construction project the planning document including a floor plan, a blueprint, or a computer-aided design (CAD) drawing that describes, according to formats used for building constructions, physical locations and dimensions for building one or more retail stores that each have multiple aisles for displaying retail items belonging to multiple departments, extracting, from the planning document, a set of items to be used in the construction project based on parsing one or more drawings in the planning document to determine (1) building materials along with (2) fixtures and (3) non-fixtures of items not sold in the one or more retail stores, receiving item demand data associated with an item used in determining demand for the item, receiving a user input associated with the item used in determining the demand for the item, generating a forecast of item demand for the item based on item demand data and the user input, and transmitting a notice to a supply chain system to acquire the item based on the forecast.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in all claims are directed to a processor, memory, processor executable instructions, computing devices, network, graphical user interface, computer-readable medium, and executing a software application, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations in all claims are directed to: a processor, memory, processor executable instructions, computing devices, network, graphical user interface, computer-readable medium, and executing a software application. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity by clarifying user input and sources of demand information, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Claim 17 recites computer readable medium and therefore is not directed to statutory subject matter since computer readable medium may encompass software per se. Such claimed program does not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the program and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the program functionality to be realized. See MPEP 2106.01 (I). The system has no physical components or structure and is thus considered non-statutory. Claiming that this component is non-transitory would resolve the issue.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm EST.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights