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 . Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14-23 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
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 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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 20: a rent collections compliance module configured to ensure payment collection compliance with respect to a tenant occupying the first rental property in the first jurisdiction and based on jurisdictional regulations and to automatically generate and send notices that comply with requirement in the first jurisdiction.
Claim 20: tenant report card module configured to provide a relational score relating to rental payment performance by the tenant, in relation to how other tenants perform and configured to generate a report card on tenant payment practices.
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. See para. [0019], for example, which discloses:
FIG. 1 illustrates a rental property management system in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. In an example embodiment, the system 100 is configured for rent payment and collections management relating to a leasing process for a rental property, and may be implemented as a leasing management system. The system 100 comprises a rent collections compliance module 110, a tenant report card module 120, and a tenant management database 140. In an example embodiment, the tenant report card module 120 comprises a leasing report card module, and the tenant management database 140 comprises a leasing management database. In an embodiment, the system includes one or more processors 130, and machine-readable instructions 132 executable by the one or more processors to provide the functions of the rent collections compliance module 110 and the tenant report card module 120. In another embodiment, the system 100 may be configured by machine-readable instructions 132, and the machine-readable instructions 132 may include one or more instruction modules. The instruction modules may include computer program modules. The instruction modules may include one or more of rent collections compliance module 110, tenant report card module 120 and/or other instruction modules.
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 1-8, 10-12, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, claim 1 is to a method (i.e., a process); claim 19 is to a non-transient computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture or machine); and claim 20 is to a system (i.e., a machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or are significantly more.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 1 recites the following abstract idea:
storing a first set of legal notification requirements associated with a first jurisdiction;
storing a second set of legal notification requirements associated with a second jurisdiction;
obtaining rental payment information from a rental transaction record, the rental payment information associated with a first rental property in the first jurisdiction;
obtaining the first set of legal notification requirements for the first jurisdiction with which the first rental property is associated;
determining, based on the first set of legal notification requirements and on the obtained rental payment information, whether a first set of pre-conditions for tenant notification of insufficient rental payment has been satisfied with respect to the first rental property;
based on determining that the first set of pre-conditions has been satisfied, generating a notice of insufficient payment that satisfies a second set of notification conditions for tenant notification of insufficient rental payment with respect to the first rental property, the second set of notification conditions being based on the first set of legal notification requirements associated with the first jurisdiction;
in response to receiving a confirmation from a property owner user, sending the notice of insufficient payment to a tenant of the first rental property in a manner that complies with the second set of notification conditions;
logging the notice of insufficient payment and the rental payment information; and
providing, based on the logged notice of insufficient payment and the rental payment information, a secondary notification of the issuance of the notice of insufficient payment to the tenant;
wherein the notice of insufficient payment is sent to the tenant using a first communication channel and the secondary notification is sent to the tenant using a different communication channel, wherein the first communication channel is selected to comply with the second set of notification conditions, and the second communication channel is different from the first communication channel.
Claim 19 recites the following abstract idea:
storing a first set of legal notification requirements associated with a first jurisdiction;
storing a second set of legal notification requirements associated with a second jurisdiction;
obtaining rental payment information from a rental transaction record, the rental payment information associated with a first rental property in the first jurisdiction;
obtaining the first set of legal notification requirements associated for the first jurisdiction with which the first rental property is associated;
determining, based on the first set of legal notification requirements and on the obtained rental payment information, whether a first set of pre-conditions for tenant notification of insufficient rental payment has been satisfied with respect to the first rental property;
based on determining that the first set of pre-conditions has been satisfied, and in response to receiving a confirmation from a property owner user, generating a notice of insufficient payment that satisfies a second set of notification conditions for tenant notification of insufficient rental payment with respect to the first rental property, the second set of notification conditions being based on the first set of stored legal notification requirements associated with the first jurisdiction;
in response to receiving a confirmation from a property owner, sending the notice of insufficient payment to a tenant of the first rental property in a manner that complies with the second set of notification conditions;
logging the notice of insufficient payment and the rental payment information; and
providing, based on the logged notice of insufficient payment and the rental payment information, a secondary notification of the issuance of the notice of insufficient payment to the tenant;
wherein the notice of insufficient payment is sent to the tenant using a first communication channel and the secondary notification is sent to the tenant using a different communication channel, wherein the first communication channel is selected to comply with the second set of notification conditions, and the second communication channel is different from the first communication channel.
Claim 20 recites the following abstract idea:
store first set of legal notification requirements associated with a first jurisdiction and to store a second set of legal notification requirements associated with a second jurisdiction;
store logs of notices of insufficient rental payment and to store first rental payment information associated with a first rental property in the first jurisdiction and second rental payment information associated with a second rental property in the second jurisdiction;
ensure payment collection compliance with respect to a tenant occupying the first rental property in the first jurisdiction and based on jurisdictional regulations and to generate and send notices that comply with requirement in the first jurisdiction; and
provide a relational score relating to rental payment performance by the tenant, in relation to how other tenants perform and configured to generate a report card on tenant payment practices;
perform a method for rent payment and collections management relating to the leasing process for the rental properties, the method comprising:
storing the first set of legal notification requirements associated with the first jurisdiction;
storing the second set of legal notification requirements associated with a second jurisdiction;
obtaining the first rental payment information associated with the first rental property in the first jurisdiction;
obtaining the first set of legal notification requirements for the first jurisdiction with which the first rental property is associated;
determining, based on the first set of legal notification requirements and on the obtained first rental payment information, whether a first set of pre-conditions for tenant notification of insufficient rental payment has been satisfied with respect to the first rental property;
based on determining that the first set of pre-conditions has been satisfied, generating a notice of insufficient payment that satisfies a second set of notification conditions for tenant notification of insufficient rental payment with respect to the first rental property, the second set of notification conditions being based on the first set of legal notification requirements associated with the first jurisdiction;
in response to receiving a confirmation from a property owner user, sending the notice of insufficient payment to a tenant of the first rental property in a manner that complies with the second set of notification conditions;
logging the notice of insufficient payment and the first rental payment information; and
providing, based on the logged notice of insufficient payment and the first rental payment information, a secondary notification of the issuance of the notice of insufficient payment to the tenant;
wherein the notice of insufficient payment is sent to the tenant using a first communication channel and the secondary notification is sent to the tenant using a different communication channel, wherein the first communication channel is selected to comply with the second set of notification conditions, and the second communication channel is different from the first communication channel.
The abstract idea steps recited above are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. Applicant has broadly claimed: 1) determining whether tenant notification of insufficient rental payment has been satisfied, based on stored legal notification requirements associated with a jurisdiction of the rental property and rental payment information from a rental transaction record for a tenant occupying the rental property (claims 1, 19, and 20); and 2) determining payment compliance and a relational score relating to rental payment performance by the tenant (claim 20). Either of which constitutes a judgment and/or an evaluation. Further, an administrator could accomplish these steps with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claim is directed to the specific instructions necessary in order to: 1) determine whether tenant notification of insufficient rental payment has been satisfied, based on stored legal notification requirements associated with a jurisdiction of the rental property and rental payment information from a rental transaction record for a tenant occupying the rental property (claims 1, 19, and 20); and 2) determine payment compliance and a relational score relating to rental payment performance by the tenant (claim 20). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claim is directed to managing the business relation between tenant and landlord, accomplished via: 1) determining whether tenant notification of insufficient rental payment has been satisfied, based on stored legal notification requirements associated with a jurisdiction of the rental property and rental payment information from a rental transaction record for a tenant occupying the rental property (claims 1, 19, and 20); and 2) determining payment compliance and a relational score relating to rental payment performance by the tenant (claim 20). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite generic computing elements:
Claim 1: first database; second database; via a graphical user-interface; central database accessible by the tenant and a landlord; automatically.
Claim 19: non-transient computer-readable storage medium; one or more processors; first database; second database; via a graphical user-interface; central database accessible by the tenant and a landlord; automatically.
Claim 20: tenant management database; central database [accessible by the tenant and a landlord]; a non-transient computer-readable storage medium; one or more hardware processors; rent collections compliance module; tenant report card module; via a graphical user-interface; automatically.
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Applicant’s specification only describes these elements as generic, as seen in para. [0041] to [0050]. The combination of elements is nothing more than a generic computing system
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two that pertain to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery, where the combination of elements is nothing more than a generic computing system (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not amount to significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Claims 2-8, 10-11, 14-16, and 18 include additional steps that narrow the abstract idea. These additional steps are facilitated by the additional elements highlighted above, which, as indicated previously, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and are not significantly more, when viewed alone or in combination (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12 includes additional steps that narrow the abstract idea, in addition to describing another additional element (via a graphical user-interface). This further additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more, when viewed alone or in combination with those highlighted previously (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 17 includes additional steps that narrow the abstract idea, in addition to describing another additional element (electronic). This further additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more, when viewed alone or in combination with those highlighted previously (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 21-22 includes additional steps that narrow the abstract idea, in addition to describing more additional elements (graphical user interface; tenant user device). These further additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and are not significantly more, when viewed alone or in combination with those highlighted previously (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 23 includes additional steps that narrow the abstract idea, in addition to describing another additional element (electronic). This further additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more, when viewed alone or in combination with those highlighted previously (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The headings and page numbers below correspond to those used by applicant in the response.
Claim Amendments; Claim Objections; Claim Interpretation
Applicant is thanked for the status updates concerning the present amendments. In view of applicant’s amendments, the previous objections are withdrawn. Applicant’s comments regarding claim interpretation are noted.
35 USC § 101
Applicant offers on pages 15-17, after summarizing USPTO eligibility guidance and examiner’s analysis (brackets indicate sections omitted for purposes of brevity):
As the Examiner will appreciate, "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas". However, not all claims recite an abstract idea. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980-81 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 US 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they do not recite an abstract idea, although it may be apparent that at some level they are based on or involve an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the Applicant disagrees with the Examiner's analysis under Step 2A Prong 1, and in view of the foregoing, the Applicant submits that the claimed subject matter, as a
whole, is not directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A (Prong 2): The claimed subject matter, as a whole, is integrated into a practical application.
For completeness, in the case that the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant's above analysis under the First Prong of Step 2A, the Applicant submits, without acquiescing to the Examiner's rejection of the record, that the claimed subject matter is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under the Second Prong of Step 2A.
On pages 11-12 of the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the Examiner asserts that the claims only recite generic computing elements at a high-level of generality such that they amount [to] no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of the record for at least the following reasons.
As stated in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), one way to demonstrate that an alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The Applicant submits that the claimed technology is directed to a specific improvement in notification effectiveness and tracking, in particular for management of tenants which is a highly regulated industry with varying legal requirements across different jurisdictions.
The present claims define a specific technological solution for improving notification efficacy while also ensuring compliance with legal notification requirements. That is, the claimed systems and methods improve the effectiveness of an end-user receiving and viewing a time- dependent notification while still ensuring that the landlord complies with jurisdiction-specific notification requirements. The specific limitations defined in the claims further involve applying an alleged judicial exception in a particularly meaningful way such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception and is thus integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further submits that the amended claims are similar to claim 1 of subject matter eligibility example 42 from the 2019 PEG Examples 37 through 42 (issued January 7, 2019), which was identified as being patent eligible at step 2A-Prong 2 integrated into a practical application. Similar to claim 1 in eligibility example 42, the present independent claims recite a combination of additional elements, including storing information in a central database, providing different user types with access to the central database, automatically converting updated information to a standardized format compliant with legal notification requirements, automatically generating a message in the standardized format and transmitting the message to a tenant user in a first communication channel compliant with the legal notification requirements, automatically generating a second notification message and transmitting the second notification message to the tenant user via a second communication channel different from the first communication channel. The independent claims as a whole integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by automatically generating and sending notifications in a standardized format required to comply with specific legal requirements while also generating a secondary notification that is sent through a different communication channel to improve the efficacy and timeliness of the notification. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.
Accordingly, the Applicant disagrees with the Examiner's analysis under Step 2A Prong 2, and in view of the foregoing, the Applicant submits that the claimed subject matter, as a whole, is integrated into a practical application.
Examiner first notes that applicant has appeared to conflate the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. Examiner’s position is that an abstract idea is recited, and the particular channels need not necessarily be technical (e.g., via postal mail and courier). The additional elements (e.g., first database; second database; via a graphical user-interface; central database accessible by the tenant and a landlord; automatically) are not claimed or described with any technical specificity. Examiner maintains that the steps of the abstract idea are simply being facilitated by generic computing elements. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), however, the mere application of generic computing elements to the abstract idea is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical application and/or be significantly more.
Further, the combination of elements does not appear to be anything more than a generic computing system, which is also used for the tasks of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) also applies in this instance, i.e., the mere application of the combination of elements to the abstract idea is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical application and/or be significantly more.
Lastly, examiner notes that remarks concerning the technical improvement or attempts to draw parallels to PTO examples are also not persuasive. While applicant may have arrived at a potentially novel abstract idea, this does not automatically confer eligibility, per MPEP 2106.05.
Applicant continues on page 17, regarding Step 2B:
Again, for completeness, in the case that the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant's above analysis under the Second Prong of Step 2A, the Applicant submits, without acquiescing to the Examiner's rejection of the record, that the claimed subject matter is directed to patent- eligible subject matter under Step 2B.
The Applicant disagrees. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(), under Step 2B, the claim as a whole must amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the claim features define an improvement in notification, payment, and tracking functions for a tenant management system that is beyond any well-understood, routine, conventional activity. This is readily apparent from the Office Action itself which states that the combination of prior art references fails to disclose, inter alia:
-automatically sending the notice of insufficient payment to a tenant of the first rental property in a manner that complies with the second set of notification conditions;
-logging, in a central database accessible by the tenant and a landlord, the notice of insufficient payment and the rental payment information; and
-automatically providing, based on the logged notice of insufficient payment and the rental payment information in the central database, a secondary notification of the issuance of the notice of insufficient payment to the tenant
Applicant further submits that the prior art references cannot be considered to disclose that the notice of insufficient payment is sent to the tenant using a first communication channel and the secondary notification is sent to the tenant using a different communication channel, wherein the first communication channel is automatically selected to comply with the second set of notification conditions, and the second communication channel is different from the first communication channel as required by the amended independent claims.
The specific technical process defined by the claim limitations ensures that a landlord can notify a tenant in a manner that is legally compliant and actually effective in notifying the tenant, while ensuring that the notifications are tracked and logged in a manner that is accessible to all parties. In many jurisdictions, notifications may be required to be sent by postal mail to comply with legal notification requirements and must be sent in a specific form. However, many tenants may check their mail infrequently. In addition, the form of the legally compliant notification may be difficult to parse for tenants and thus tenants may not readily understand how to respond to the notice and remedy their payments. A secondary notification provided through a different communication channel can provide greater efficacy in actually notifying a tenant, by providing the tenant with a secondary notification through a communication channel they use more frequently.
Timeliness is an important factor in relation to notices of insufficient payment. Many
jurisdictions provide tenants with a specified timeline to remedy insufficient payments to avoid eviction proceedings. Accordingly, ensuring that the tenant is aware of the notice of insufficient payment (e.g. through the secondary notification) provides the tenant with more time to remedy the deficiency and avoid eviction.
The Office Action states that notification efficiency is not sufficient to establish that the combination of elements integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or define significantly more than the abstract idea. However, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims define a specific technical approach for improving notification efficacy while also ensuring compliance with legal notification requirements. That is, the claimed systems and methods improve the effectiveness of an end-user actually receiving and viewing a time-dependent notification. This provides a more effective manner of ensuring that the end-user can take the necessary remedial steps to address the deficiencies in payment, including for example by initiating a payment directly via the secondary notification (see e.g. claim 22).
Furthermore, the secondary notification is not required to comply with the legal notification requirements and thus can provide a tenant with a simpler explanation of the issue at hand and how the tenant can address the issue. In some cases, the secondary notification can even include a payment prompt to enable the tenant to remedy the insufficient payment by directly interacting with the secondary notification even if the tenant has not received or viewed the notice of insufficient payment (see e.g. claim 22).
These specific limitations are clearly not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and confine the claim to a particular useful application. Accordingly, these limitations amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.
In view of at least the foregoing, it is submitted that independent claims 1, 19 and 20 are directed to patent eligible subject matter and the subject matter of the dependent claims is also patent eligible at least due to their dependencies from independent claim 1.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections raised under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is requested.
Examiner again notes that applicant has appeared to conflate the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. Examiner’s position is that an abstract idea is recited. The claim features (sending the notice of insufficient payment, logging the notice of insufficient payment and the rental payment information, and providing, based on the logged notice of insufficient payment and the rental payment information, a secondary notification of the issuance of the notice of insufficient payment to the tenant) are steps that an administrator could perform and considered part of the abstract idea. The notification details and ascribed benefit, i.e., providing the tenant with more time to remedy the deficiency and avoid eviction, are considered potential improvements to the abstract idea.
The additional elements (e.g., first database; second database; via a graphical user-interface; central database accessible by the tenant and a landlord; automatically) are not claimed or described with any technical specificity. Examiner maintains that the steps of the abstract idea are simply being facilitated by generic computing elements. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), however, the mere application of generic computing elements to the abstract idea is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical application and/or be significantly more.
Accordingly, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20020169718, which teaches: The present invention provides a system for improving the payment of child maintenance monies from a payor parent to a payee parent in a legal jurisdiction. The system administers a contract with the payee parent, wherein the contract guarantees the payment of child maintenance monies. For as long as the payor parent does not timely pay, the system pays the payee parent the child maintenance monies and enforces rights to payment obtained from the payee parent against the payor parent under applicable statutes of the legal jurisdiction. The associated method requires entering into the contract with the payee parent, receiving notice that the payor parent has not timely paid the child maintenance monies, paying the child maintenance monies for so long as the payor parent does not timely pay, and enforcing rights to payment under applicable statutes of the legal jurisdiction.
US 20090307117, which teaches: The invention provides methods, systems and apparatus for combining aspects of a prepay and post pay utility service billing arrangement. When a customer enrolls in the program with the system, utility service is initiated and a first bill is generated and transmitted; the amount of the first bill is an estimated amount of charges for the service to be provided during a first period. In subsequent billing periods, subsequent bills are generated and transmitted and each includes an estimated amount of charges for the subsequent period as well as a difference between actual and estimated charges for the service during the previous billing period, less any payments received from the customer. Service may be terminated if the customer withdraws from the program, if the customer fails to make timely payments, or for other reasons. If service is terminated, a final bill may be generated and transmitted based on actual charges, net of any amounts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
/JOHN S. WASAFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629