DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on June 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 20-25 are withdrawn. Claims 1-19 filed 6/15/26 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
6. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-19 are directed to a system, all of which are statutory. Claims 1-19 are statutory classes of invention.
7. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea of an improved construction system generating a set of procedures for building a model with a set of inventory parts.
The independent claim 1 recites the following limitations which fall under a mental process:
receiving a digital representation of an object;
applying an image recognition algorithm to detect one or more objects from the digital representation;
conducting artificial classification algorithm to classify each of the objects into a predetermined assembly, wherein the predetermined assembly is associated with a set of predetermined parts with a set of predetermined procedures;
determining a set of modification parts for the predetermined assembly;
substituting the set of modification parts with one or more inventory parts; and
generating a set of procedures by updating the set of predetermined procedures in accordance with the inventory parts.
8. According to the MPEP, a mental process can be a concept performed in the human mind. Clearly, an improved construction system generating a set of procedures for building a model with a set of inventory parts falls under a mental process. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
9. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites an improved construction system generating a set of procedures for building a model with a set of inventory parts with generally recited computer elements which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for an improved construction system generating a set of procedures for building a model with a set of inventory parts. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
10. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
11. Regarding dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, and 12, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of an improved construction system generating a set of procedures for building a model with a set of inventory parts, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claims 4, 8, and 18-19, although these claims recite a generally recited inventory database, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of an improved construction system generating a set of procedures for building a model with a set of inventory parts, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Regarding dependent claims 9-11, although these claims recite a generally recited server-side database, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of an improved construction system generating a set of procedures for building a model with a set of inventory parts, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Regarding dependent claims 13-17, although these claims recite a generally recited processor, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of an improved construction system generating a set of procedures for building a model with a set of inventory parts, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
16. Claims 1-19 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however, there remains a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 4, 9, 11, and 16 (dependent on 15 and 14) together into the independent claims. The Examiner suggests explaining how the artificial intelligence is trained and re-trained uniquely. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
17. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to be Thompson (US 2023/0281865), Walker et al (US 2022/0362674), and Usui et al (US 2023/0028630). Thompson (US 2023/0281865) is directed to optical recognition and identification of objects and inventorying of the same. Walker et al (US 2022/0362674) is a method for creating a virtual object. Usui et al (US 2023/0028630) is directed to controlling generation of virtual model. Massie (A tangible goal for 3D modeling, NPL) is directed to 3D modeling, and is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
18. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
conducting artificial classification algorithm to classify each of the objects…
determining a set of modification parts for the predetermined assembly;
substituting the set of modification parts with one or more inventory parts.
19. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Massie (A tangible goal for 3D modeling, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
22. 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.
23. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
24. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights