DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Claim 1 has been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Continuation
3. This application 19/220,235 is a continuation of U.S. application 17/385,796 (filed 07/26/2021, where this parent application was previously abandoned on 06/11/2025. See MPEP § 201.08. In accordance with MPEP § 609.02 A. 2 and MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also, in accordance with MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP § 609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Priority
4. The Examiner has noted the Applicants claiming Priority from Provisional Application (PRO) 62/457,587 filed on 02/10/2017, Continuation (CON) of 15/893,397 filed on 02/09/2018 and Continuation (CON) of 17/385,796 filed on 07/26/2021. The earliest effective filing date of this application examined is reflective of 02/10/2017.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is focused to a statutory category namely a “device” or an “apparatus” (Claim 1).
Step 2A Prong One: Independent Claim 1 recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely (see in bold except via strikethrough):
“” (see Independent Claim 1);
“” (see Independent Claim 1);
“” (see Independent Claim 1);
“receive a plurality of finish pin data sets, each finish pin data set associated with a corresponding finish of a construction project” (see Independent Claim 1);
“analyze each finish pin data set to identify associated project context information” (see Independent Claim 1);
“based on the project context information, generate a task of a task list and an associated subproject indicator for a project chart of the construction project” (see Independent Claim 1);
“automatically generate the project chart with the subproject indicator for at least a first finish based on the task and the project context information and one or more associated relationships with related subproject indicators within the project chart” (see Independent Claim 1).
Here, for Independent Claim 1, the claims recite an abstract idea of managing human activity and project scheduling/tracking for home construction projects, which falls under the judicial exception categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. More specifically, Independent Claim 1 is directed to the abstract concept of project management and tracking, namely gathering data about work elements, correlating them into tasks, and organizing them visually into a project schedule or chart.
For example; the steps of (1) -> “Receive finish pin data sets”: Recites data gathering/observation. Mere acquisition of information without a specific, unconventional capture technique. This falls under mental processes (observing information). (2) -> “Analyze finish pin data set for context”: Recites evaluation and determination. Evaluation and categorization step; maps to mental processes (observing/evaluating project state). This falls under mental processes (evaluating/judging data). (3) “Generate task element and subproject indicator”: Recites creating a plan or organization scheme. Rules-based creation of administrative categories, matching methods of organizing human commercial activity. This falls under certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial/business tracking and managing interactions/rules). (4) “Automatically generate project chart with relationships”: Recites data display and organization. Output generation step; automating a scheduling chart using computer logic. This falls under methods of organizing human activity (managing tasks).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities: Coordinating construction phases, assigning indicators, and mapping project timelines. The steps relate to commercial interactions and business relations (managing a commercial construction project, tracking subproject deliverables, scheduling business workflow milestones, and resource allocation relations). While not a strict contract or financial hedging practice, it falls squarely within commercial operations and organizational business logistics.
Mental Processes: Concepts that can be performed in the human mind or via a pen-and-paper ledger (analyzing inputs, determining relationships, and compiling a list/chart).
Therefore, other than reciting the additional elements of (e.g., “a memory” & “a display” & “one or more processors” & “finish element” & “a first finish element” & “task element”), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (1) managing personal behavior or relationships (including teachings or following rules or instructions) or (2) commercial interactions (including business relations) and additionally or alternatively as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (3) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (4) using pen and paper as a physical aid.
Moreover, the mere recitation of generic computer components such as (e.g., “a memory” & “a display” & “one or more processors”) does not take the claims out of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” or “Mental Processes” Groupings.
Therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Yes, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. We proceed onto analyzing the claims at step 2a prong 2.
Step 2A Prong Two: With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 1 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “a memory” & “a display” & “one or more processors”). These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Merely reciting generic hardware components—a display, a memory, and one or more processors configured to perform generic data gathering, analysis, and generation—does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The operations describe what is achieved (generating a chart from data) rather than a non-conventional improvement to how a computer or network functions internally. Simply appending generic hardware—such as "a display", "a memory", and "one or more processors configured to" execute routine receiving, analyzing, and charting—does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. It uses the computer merely as a tool to automate manual scheduling, failing to integrate the exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
Moreover, with respect to Independent Claim 1, certain/particular limitations shown recite (1) “mere data gathering” (e.g., “receive a plurality of finish pin data sets, each finish pin data set associated with a corresponding finish element of a construction project”), wherein which this claim limitation reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)).
Independent Claim 1: Examiner notes that the additional elements of (e.g., “finish element” & “a first finish element” & “task element”) when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 due to the following: (1) the claims as a whole are limited to a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to managing human activity and project scheduling/tracking for home construction projects using a computer in a project management field (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)) or (2) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Elements like "finish element," "first finish element," and "task element" describe the content of the information being processed rather than a technical improvement to the computer or network. When viewed as a whole, these elements do not improve computer functionality or transform the system into a specific technological solution. They merely apply an abstract concept within the specific technological environment (construction management) using computer components, meaning the exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
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. Therefore, at step 2a prong 2, Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent Claim 1 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “a memory” & “a display” & “one or more processors”). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05 (f) and MPEP § 2106.05 (h). Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general-purpose computer executing the instructions to implement the invention (e.g., see Applicant’s Specification ¶ [00102]: “For example, a hardware module can include software encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor. It will be appreciated that the decision to implement a hardware module mechanically, in dedicated and permanently configured circuitry, or in temporarily configured circuitry (e.g., configured by software) can be driven by cost and time considerations.” See Applicant’s Specification ¶ [00103]: “For example, where a hardware module comprises a general-purpose processor configured by software to become a special-purpose processor, the general-purpose processor may be configured as respectively different special-purpose processors (e.g., comprising different hardware modules) at different times.”).
Independent Claim 1: Examiner notes that the additional elements of (e.g., “finish element” & “a first finish element” & “task element”) when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due to the following: (1) the claims as a whole are limited to a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to managing human activity and project scheduling/tracking for home construction projects using a computer in a project management field (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)) or (2) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, with respect to Independent Claim 1, certain/particular limitations shown recite (1) “mere data gathering” (e.g., “receive a plurality of finish pin data sets, each finish pin data set associated with a corresponding finish element of a construction project”), wherein which this claim limitation reflects mere insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, this certain/particular claim limitation as demonstrated above for Independent Claim 1 reflects Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities (WURC) under MPEP § 2106.05 (d) ii: See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
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. 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, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The ordered combination of elements in the 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. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, under Step 2B, Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claim 1 is ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub (US 2015/0324940 A1) hereinafter Samson, et. al., and in view of US PG Pub (US 2017/0091685 A1) hereinafter Karabin.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Samson device for a client/contractor home improvement communication platform teaches the following:
- a display (see at least Samson: Figs. 1-2 & Fig. 4 & ¶ [0035-0036]. Samson teaches that the core of the 3D design studio 106 is the real-time virtual experience 120, which provides the user with a real-time graphical display of a virtual building corresponding to the real-world building that the customer is intending to purchase and have built. In concert with the real-time graphical display, the 3D design studio 106 further provides the user with customization engine 122 that presents the user with all of the available swappable options for the particular building so that the user can select and customize the building, including interior features, exterior features, land features, etc.);
- a memory coupled to the display (see at least Samson: ¶ [0027].); and
- one or more processors (see at least Samson: ¶ [0010] & Figs. 1-2. Samson teaches a tangible, interactive computer system is operated by the user, comprising at least one digital processor, at least one display connected to the at least one digital processor and capable of displaying a graphical user interface, a user touch-sensitive input device connected to the at least one digital processor for manipulating the graphical user interface based upon inputs received from the user, and a processor-readable storage device.) coupled to the memory and the display (see at least Samson: ¶ [0027].), the one or more processors (see at least Samson: ¶ [0010] & Figs. 1-2.)
configured to:
- receive a plurality of finish pin data sets, each finish pin data set associated
with a corresponding finish element of a construction project (see at least Samson: FIG.5, and 6: 504 and 604, each is associated with an exterior and interior respectively, the corresponding 3D modeling is shown in FIG. 5 and 6. Samson at ¶ [0064], “As before, the interior customization feature 600 includes a virtual representation of the home interior 610 using 2D or 3D graphics”.);
- analyze each finish pin data set to identify associated project context information (see at least Samson: ¶ [0063], “The interior customization options can apply across all types of buildings. It is contemplated that the user will be presented with a predetermined list of items that can be changed, customized, or swapped, insofar as is within the ready capability of the home builder or manufacturer (although the user could be provided with substantially unlimited control over modifications). Keeping with a consistent user experience, the interior customization feature 600 greets the user with the same personalization 602, and a similar workflow 604 is shown to graphically orient the user within the entire home design process. Pricing information can still show the base price 606 of the home, and the current price 608 that now includes the real-time price of the home with the previously-selected exterior upgrades and options.”);
- based on the project context information, generate task elements of a task list and associated subproject indicators for a project chart of the construction project (see at least Samson at ¶ [0063], “While viewing the interior of the home, the homebuyer can customize many options. Some of the areas that the homebuyer may upgrade or change are throughout all rooms of the home, such as the Kitchen (including cabinets, countertops, faucets, appliances, lighting, structural additions such as an island, and more), Dining Room, Living Room, Master Bedroom, Master Bathroom (including shower and bathtub selections, faucets/fixtures, toilet, vanity style and countertop, and more), Guest Rooms, Guest Baths, Sitting Rooms, Utility Rooms (including washer, dryer, and storage cabinets), and more, depending on the model selected. Custom wall paint (including accent walls), flooring (including varying by room as desired), and other details such as crown molding or door handles may be updated and customized per room or overall, as a global change. The customer may further be provided with the option to add/change other features, as standalone items or part of packages, such as audio equipment (speakers (in-wall, surround), amplifiers, etc.), video equipment (TV, cable, antenna, satellite), lighting (interior or exterior), security equipment (window or door sensors, glass break detector, fire detector, CO detector, siren, motion detectors, video services, theft detection, temperature/flood detectors, keypads, control panels, remote controls, etc.), energy additions (solar power, geothermal, etc.), smart home controls, telecommunications (telephone, cable, fiber, networking, wireless networking, cellular phone/data, satellite, etc.), or other miscellaneous furnishings.” FIG. 6 630 shows an example of the associated subproject indicator and task list.).
Moreover, Samson device for a client/contractor home improvement communication platform does not explicitly disclose, but Karabin however in the analogous art for the client/contractor home improvement communication platform teaches the following limitations:
- automatically generate the project chart (see at least Karabin: ¶ [0150].) with the subproject indicator (see at least Karabin: ¶ [0144].) for at least a first finish element based on the task element (see at least Karabin: ¶ [0109-0110] & ¶ [0150] & ¶ [0164] & ¶ [0178]. Karabin teaches that in FIG. 10, when “BASEMENT” floor button 120 is selected from the intermediate portion 93, then “BASEMENT” floor label 129 is displayed in second portion 92. In intermediate portion 93, a space type of the “BASEMENT” may be selected using drop-down menu 146 to choose between “BALCONY” 130 a, “BEDROOM” 130 b and “FAMILY ROOM” 130 c. For example, features 144 available for “BEDROOM” 130 b may include AV/home entertainment, edging, flooring, interior walls, lighting, trim and wall finish. See also Karabin at ¶ [0109-0110]: Project information elements such as, costs, tasks, communications, features, attributes, times, dates, photos and notes are connected by place and provide useful, fast reports, and eliminate redundancy in report creation by means of leveraging user inputs typical to project related processes. See also Karabin at ¶ [0150]: Analytics and reporting module analyzes information related to the project and generates a variety of reports, such as, histograms, time lines, bar charts, and tabular data, and so forth, using data visualization techniques. See also Karabin at ¶ [0178]: A report listing the trades people (Project information element) and their scheduled date for the bathroom (Place) is generated. Similarly, the manager may choose to view the same criteria only using a different Place i.e. Kitchen instead of Bathroom which yields a new list generated. See also Karabin at ¶ [0190-0191]: Selectable functionality control button 514 is associated with inserting content pertaining to the refrigerator, such as images, audio and/or video objects and documents, photos, and notes are added via input field 516. The content may be user generated, such as user's images or videos, or the content may be sourced from web via actuation of icons 520, 522, 523, hyperlinked to a web browser, at least one social media networking site, and a resource with user-generated content or library associated with system 10,) and the project context information (see at least Karabin: ¶ [0110] & ¶ [0190]. Karabin notes that complete details of current and past projects are organized and captured in one place; and the system provides a medium of communication that gives context to the information being exchanged i.e. place-centric.) and one or more relationships with related subproject indicators within the project chart (see at least Karabin: ¶ [0138] & ¶ [0144] & ¶ [0156-0159] & ¶ [0168] & Fig. 5. Karabin teaches that the connecting lines shown in the various figures contained herein are intended to represent exemplary functional relationships and/or physical couplings between the various elements. It should be noted that many alternative or additional functional relationships or physical connections may be present in a practical system. See also Karabin at ¶ [0156]: Karabin teaches that Place 78 is the hub through which multiple relationships are formed. Place-centricity affords information and data to be captured, organized, and interacted with in a workflow process to deliver novel non-obvious user capability and efficiency. Project information elements 79 each containing their specific information is or can be in the future linked through a common relationship i.e. Place 78. Any one project element 79 or any combination of elements 79 as they relate to Place 78 yields new opportunities for information management, understanding and interaction. See also Karabin at ¶ [0159]: FIG. 5 shows exemplary process steps for building a place-centric hierarchical structure of information pertaining to a renovation project. A hierarchical relationship is established between place-centric projects within system 10 comprising an overall project wherein the overall project has a parent/child relationship to places and sub-places. See also Karabin at ¶ [0168]: The note assignment is by default auto-populated from the space in which the notes window is opened, this assignment option is firstly auto-populated and can then be editable or re-assignable by selection from a list once the relationship is populated or established. The notes can be filtered, stored, referenced, accessed, served in a database, viewed, reported on, or edited by one or more users by place-centric assignment. See also Karabin at ¶ [0164] noting that “Each of the features are assigned a unique feature identifier by project module 60, and the unique feature identifiers are associated with the unique space identifier, unique place identifier and the unique project identifier, to form a place-centric hierarchical data structure, which is stored in database 20. When the features 144 have been added, a “Finish” button 148 is selected, and process ends.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined / modified the teachings of Samson device for a client/contractor home improvement communication platform, and in view of Karabin, whereby project information can be captured, organized, and interacted with in a new way and afford users unique experiences to exercise their capabilities and increase productivity when managing project information. This enhances user workflows and contributes to improved efficiency and cost reduction through time spent capturing, storing, filing, managing, communicating, compiling, searching, sending, receiving, researching, and accuracy of information management (see at least Karabin: ¶ [0157]). Moreover, each of the features are assigned a unique feature identifier by project module, and the unique feature identifiers are associated with the unique space identifier, unique place identifier and the unique project identifier, to form a place-centric hierarchical data structure. When the features have been added, a “Finish” button is selected, and process ends (see at least Karabin: ¶ [0164]). Also the system or workflow process provides the project stakeholders with the ability to balance competing demands, define a clear project scope, identify project risks and identify potential problems in a timely manner, provide a consistent method for monitoring and controlling project deliverables and milestones, improved communication among stakeholders, measure project performance and understand the impact of the timeline and critical path when deliverables are changed (see at least Karabin: ¶ [0111]).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field for a client/contractor home improvement communication platform, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Karabin, the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Non-Patent Literature (NPL) Documents
-> Park, Chan-Sik, et al. "A framework for proactive construction defect management using BIM, augmented reality and ontology-based data collection template." Automation in construction 33 (2013): 61-71. Park at ¶ [abstract]: “In construction process, defects occur inevitably and repeatedly. It is one of the primary causes of project schedule and cost overruns. Many studies on defect causation analysis and management system have been conducted to facilitate defect measures and rectifications as well as to reduce the reoccurrence of the defect. However, those studies did not sufficiently consider the relationship of defect information flow in the construction process, which resulted in reactive rather than proactive defect management plan. This paper investigates the issues and needs of current defect management practices in the construction industry. It also presents a conceptual system framework for construction defect management that integrates ontology and augmented reality (AR) with building information modeling (BIM).”
Foreign Patent Documents
-> WO2015/196271 A1 – “A collaborative project management platform using a place-centric method and system for capturing and organizing project information”, hereinafter Karabin. Karabin teaches at ¶ [0064]: “A user is able to add features 144 to spaces 130 by assigning items, objects, information, communications, people, times, work, tasks, media, or other data. For example, in Figure 10, when "BASEMENT" floor button 120 is selected from the intermediate portion 93, then "BASEMENT" floor label 129 is displayed in second portion 92. In intermediate portion 93, a space type of the "BASEMENT" may be selected using drop-down menu 146 to choose between "BALCONY" 130a, "BEDROOM" 130b and "FAMILY ROOM" 130c. For example, features 144 available for "BEDROOM" 130b may include AV/home entertainment, edging, flooring, interior walls, lighting, trim and wall finish. Any of these features 144 appearing in intermediate portion 93 may be added by dragged and dropped to the desired space "BALCONY" 130a', "BEDROOM" 130b' and "FAMILY ROOM" 130c' appearing in second portion 92, such that identical features 144' appear below the desired space 130a', 130b' or 130c'.”
-> WO2015/171903 A1 – “3D Interactive Construction Estimating System”, hereinafter Samson, et. al. Samson at ¶ [abstract] teaches that “A 3D interactive construction estimating system is provided that includes a computerized interactive ERP/3D design and estimating system for building construction projects and services.” Samson at ¶ [0050] teaches that “these design studios 320 that the customer will participate in the real-time virtual experience 120 described herein. The customers will choose from various model homes, with or without the guide of the sales person. Once the customer has finished customizing the exterior of the building, the sales person will guide the customers in virtually moving through the interior of the home to customize the different rooms of the home. The customization of the home can include large structural items, or small detail items.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERICK HOLZMACHER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7853. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM – 6:30 PM 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 on 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-8853.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DERICK J HOLZMACHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625A
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights