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 .
Priority
Applicant claims priority to provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63/655,959, which was filed on June 4, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 6/24/2025 and 10/08/2025 has been considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s claims, filed 6/4/2025, have been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, as claimed in claims 1-8, are directed to an article of manufacture, the apparatus, as claimed in claims 9-16, are directed to a machine, the method, as claimed in claims 17-20, are directed to a process, (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 17, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
providing a quotation for metal, comprising
accessing a request from a customer for a quotation;
creating a data structure identifying at least one item included in the request;
using a model to identify at least one attribute of the at least one item based on the data structure;
selecting a product identifier based on the at least one attribute;
generating a request summary using the product identifier; and
preparing the quotation to be provided to the customer.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because enabling a customer request for a product quotation and providing a quotation to a customer is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 17 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 17. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 1 and 9 as described above for independent claim 17.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
At least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry to at least:
access a request from a customer for a quotation;
create a data structure identifying at least one item included in the request;
use a machine learning model to identify at least one attribute of the at least one item based on the data structure;
select a product identifier based on the at least one attribute;
generate a request summary using the product identifier; and
prepare the quotation to be provided to the customer.
In this case, claim 9 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
An apparatus to provide a quotation for metal, the apparatus comprising:
interface circuitry;
machine-readable instructions; and
programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine-readable instructions to:
access a request from a customer for a quotation;
create a data structure identifying at least one item included in the request;
use a machine learning model to identify at least one attribute of the at least one item based on the data structure;
select a product identifier based on the at least one attribute;
generate a request summary using the product identifier; and
prepare the quotation to be provided to the customer.
In this case, claim 17 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A method for providing a quotation for metal, the method comprising
accessing a request from a customer for a quotation;
creating a data structure identifying at least one item included in the request;
using a machine learning model to identify at least one attribute of the at least one item based on the data structure;
selecting a product identifier based on the at least one attribute;
generating a request summary using the product identifier; and
preparing the quotation to be provided to the customer.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry to”, “using a machine learning model”, and “An apparatus to provide a quotation for metal, the apparatus comprising: interface circuitry; machine-readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine-readable instructions to”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (accessing information, storing information, presenting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1, 11-14; [0024]-[0026], [0116]-[0156]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited accessing, storing, displaying/presenting steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 9, and 17 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 9, and 17, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1, 9, and 17 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, and 19
Dependent claim(s) 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, and 19, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, and 19 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1, 9, and 17.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, and 19 set forth:
wherein the at least one item included in the request for the quotation is a metal product.
wherein the at least one attribute is a desired schedule of the item, a desired edge profile of the product, a desired finish of the product, or a desired temper of the product.
wherein the data structure includes a description of the item as provided in the request for the quotation.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of enabling a customer request for a product quotation and providing a quotation to a customer. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, 9, and 17, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, and 19.
Thus, dependent 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, and 19 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 4-7, 12-15, and 20
Dependent claim(s) 4-7, 12-15, and 20 sets forth:
wherein the machine learning model is a classifier model trained to detect the at least one attribute.
wherein the machine learning model is a first machine learning model, and the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to: use a second machine learning model to identify the at least one attribute of the at least one item based on the data structure, the second machine learning model being a generative model.
wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to select the at least one attribute identified by the second machine learning model for use in the selection of the product identifier based on the at least one attribute.
wherein the machine learning model is a first machine learning model, and the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to: identify a type of the product based on the data structure; determine a list of attributes based on the type of the product; use the first machine learning model to identify a first attribute in the list of attributes; and use a second machine learning model to identify a second attribute in the list of attributes, the selection of the product identifier based on the type of the product, the first attribute, and the second attribute.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of enabling a customer request for a product quotation and providing a quotation to a customer. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “the machine learning model is a classifier model”, “a first machine learning model”, “a second machine learning model”, “the second machine learning model being a generative model”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1, 9, and 17, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 4-7, 12-15, and 20 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bryant et al. (US 2023/0334544 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bryant et al., hereinafter Bryant, discloses at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry (¶0004, ¶0020, ¶¶0082-0116, claim 21) to at least:
access a request from a customer for a quotation (Figs. 1A-2A; ¶¶0018-0021 and ¶¶0027-0033);
create a data structure identifying at least one item included in the request (Figs. 1A-2A, 3, and 4; ¶¶0020-0021, ¶0029, ¶¶0061-0069);
use a machine learning model to identify at least one attribute of the at least one item based on the data structure (Figs. 1A-2A; ¶¶0020-0021, ¶¶0061-0069);
select a product identifier based on the at least one attribute (Figs. 1A-1B, 3, and 4; ¶¶0020-0021, ¶0029, ¶¶0061-0069);
generate a request summary using the product identifier (Figs. 1A-1B; ¶¶0027-0033 in view of ¶¶0020-0021); and
prepare the quotation to be provided to the customer (Figs. 1A-1B; ¶¶0027-0033 in view of ¶¶0020-0021).
Regarding claim 7, Bryant discloses the at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the machine learning model is a first machine learning model (¶0019 and ¶0036), and the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to:
identify a type of the product based on the data structure (Figs. 1A-2A, 3, and 4; ¶¶0020-0021, ¶0029, ¶¶0061-0069);
determine a list of attributes based on the type of the product (Figs. 1A-2A, 3, and 4; ¶¶0020-0021, ¶¶0023-0024, ¶0029, ¶¶0061-0069);
use the first machine learning model to identify a first attribute in the list of attributes (Figs. 1A-2A, 3, and 4; ¶¶0020-0021, ¶0029, ¶¶0061-0069); and
use a second machine learning model to identify a second attribute in the list of attributes (Figs. 1A-2A, 3, and 4; ¶0019, ¶¶0023-0024, ¶¶0061-0069), the selection of the product identifier based on the type of the product, the first attribute, and the second attribute (Figs. 1A-1B, 3, and 4; ¶¶0019-0021, ¶¶0023-0024, ¶0029, ¶¶0061-0069).
Regarding claim 8, Bryant discloses the at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the data structure includes a description of the item as provided in the request for the quotation (Figs. 1A-2A, 3, and 4; ¶¶0018-0021, ¶0029, ¶¶0061-0069).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 1, except claim 1 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, while claim 9 is directed to an apparatus and claim 17 is directed to a method. The added elements of “An apparatus to provide a quotation for metal, the apparatus comprising: interface circuitry; machine-readable instructions; and
programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine-readable instructions” are also disclosed by Bryant (¶¶¶0004, ¶0020, ¶¶0082-0116). Therefore, claims 9 and 17 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claims 7 and 8, except claims 7 and 8 are directed to an article of manufacture while claims 15 and 16 are directed to a machine. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 7 and 8, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 15 and 16 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 7 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 10-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant in view of Perry et al. (US 11,966,955 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Bryant discloses the at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 1. While Bryant further discloses wherein the at least one item included in the request for the quotation is a product (¶¶0027-0028), Bryant does not explicitly disclose the product is a metal product. However, in the field of generating a manufacturing quote (abstract), Perry et al., hereinafter Perry teaches generating a manufacturing quote for a customer based on received item data, wherein the item can include any type of materials such as metals including aluminum, steel, titanium, metal allows, brass , and the like (col. 4, lines 27-54). The limitation of Perry is applicable to the article of Bryant as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing customers quotes for customer submitted items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the product as taught by Bryant with the metal product as taught by Perry. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the article of manufacture of Bryant in order to generate a quote for manufacturing a part based on a toolpath including any type of materials such as metals ( col. 1, lines 6-45 and col. 4, lines 27-54).
Regarding claim 3, Bryant in view of Perry teach the at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 2. While Bryant discloses identifying an attribute of the product (Figs. 1A-2A; ¶¶0020-0021, ¶¶0061-0069), Bryant does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one attribute is a desired schedule of the item, a desired edge profile of the product, a desired finish of the product, or a desired temper of the product. However, Perry further teaches the at least one attribute of the metal product is the surface finish (col. 6, lines 1-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the identified product attribute as taught by Bryant with the surface finish as taught by Perry. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the article of manufacture of Bryant in order to generate a quote for manufacturing a part based on a toolpath including semantic information of the part to be manufactured including surface finish ( col. 1, lines 6-45 and col. 6, lines 1-35).
Regarding claim 4, Bryant discloses the at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 1. While Bryant discloses the machine learning model is a model trained to detect the at least one attribute (Figs. 1A-2A; ¶¶0020-0021, ¶¶0061-0069), Bryant does not explicitly disclose the machine learning model is a classifier model. However, in the field of generating a manufacturing quote (abstract), Perry teaches generating a manufacturing quote for a customer based on received item data using a classifier model (col. 11, line 56 to col. 12, line 46). The limitation of Perry is applicable to the article of Bryant as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing customers quotes for customer submitted items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the machine learning model as taught by Bryant with the classifier model as taught by Perry. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the article of manufacture of Bryant in order to generate a quote by utilizing a machine learning classifier in order to classify manufacturability by tolerance, machine type, cost, tool, material, labor hours, etc. (col. 1, lines 6-45 and col. 4, lines 27-54 and col. 11, line 56 to col. 12, line 46).
Regarding claim 5, Bryant in view of Perry teach the at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 4, Bryant further discloses wherein the machine learning model is a first machine learning model (¶0019 and ¶0036), and the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to:
use a second machine learning model to identify the at least one attribute of the at least one item based on the data structure (Figs. 1A-2A, 3, and 4; ¶0019, ¶¶0023-0024, ¶¶0061-0069), the second machine learning model being a generative model (Figs. 1A-2B; ¶¶0044-0046, ¶0052).
Regarding claim 6, Bryant in view of Perry teach the at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 5, Bryant further discloses wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to select the at least one attribute identified by the second machine learning model for use in the selection of the product identifier based on the at least one attribute (Figs. 1A-1B, 3, and 4; ¶¶0019-0021, ¶¶0023-0024, ¶0029, ¶¶0061-0069).
Regarding claims 10-14 and 18-20, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claims 2-6, except claims 2-6 are directed to an article of manufacture while claims 10-14 are directed to a machine and claims 18-20 are directed to a process. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 2-6, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 10-14 and 18-20 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 2-6.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference U of the Notice of References Cited “Xometry Updates Process Recommender To Its AI-Powered Instant Quoting Engine” discloses enabling customer to upload CAD files, analyzing the CAD file using an AI-powered instant quoting engine, and providing a customer a quote to manufacture the product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights