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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 08/20/25 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 15, 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claims 5, 15, 19, the dependent claims recites a rendering module that is rendering the first modular home based on specifications, and that is claimed as being a “to scale” rendering in claim 19. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended in the most recent reply to recite a rendering module that is rendering the home on the parcel of land in a “to scale” manner. It is not clear if the dependent claims are actually referring to the rendering module of claims 1 and 11, or if they are reciting an additional rendering module in addition to the rendering module of the independent claims. This renders the claim indefinite.
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 claims recite a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of allowing buyers of a module home to purchase the home before buying the land that the home is to be located on, by providing information to the prospective buyer. This is a sales practice that is part of the overall process of selling modular homes and land to buyers. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities.
Using claim 11 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 1, 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
storing modular home and land data;
retrieve modular home data and generate a display of available modular homes for purchase from the at least one database:
receive user inputs specifying preferences for a modular home, including at least one specification of a first modular home,
execute an algorithm to match the modular home with available land based on user preferences and modular home specifications from the at least one database; and
continuously querying one or more external land databases in real-time and updating stored land availability data;
automatically notifying a user, via communication, when land becomes available that matches the at least one specification of the first modular home based on the updated land availability data and
rendering a scale-accurate graphical representation of the first modular home overlaid on a parcel boundary of the available land, wherein the rendering is automatically updated when the land availability data changes, and
wherein the rendering provides a technical improvement by enabling real-time visualization of home-to-parcel compatibility using scale-accurate graphical overlays
The above limitations are reciting a process by which a user can select a home for purchase and can then be notified when land becomes available (to build the home on) and where the user is provided with a visual representation of the home in relation to the parcel boundary. This is a reciting a sales practice that is selling modular homes and land to buyers by providing information about the home including by providing a visualization of the home overlaid on a parcel boundary. This represents s certain method of organizing human activities in the form of a fundamental economic practice of home sales. All of the steps that define the abstract idea can be performed by people manually so there is nothing claimed that cannot stepwise that is only something a computer can perform. A person can look at data from a notebook and can show another user a photo of a home available for purchase, such as you would find in a sales brochure. A person can also specify a selection of a home and determine available land for purchase. The notification can be done verbally by two people talking. The claimed visualization of the home on the parcel can be done using paper representations or by using transparent overhead projector sheets that show the home in relation to the parcel boundary. The point the examiner is trying to make is that the claimed steps are reciting a sales activity that can be performed by people involved in selling and buying homes for construction on a parcel of land. Facilitating real estate transactions by assisting users in finding land (a lot, parcel) to build their home on, is a certain method of organizing human activities.
For claims 1, the additional elements are a database, the sales module executed by at least one processor, a notification module executed by the at least one processor, and a rendering module that is executed by a graphics processor (all computers have a graphics card/processor that allows for visual display of information and images/video to occur).
For claim 11, the additional elements are the database, the graphics processor that is used for the rendering of the representation, calling the notification electronic.
Claim 20 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer readable medium that includes code to causes the steps of the abstract idea to be executed. The claim also refers to the graphics processor and a database, although the claim is only reciting the actual code to cause the recited functions to occur and not the database or graphic processor.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when viewed with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device (sales module executed by at least one processor, a notification module executed by the at least one processor, and a rendering module that is executed by a graphics processor) to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when viewed with the claims as a whole, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device (sales module executed by at least one processor, a notification module executed by the at least one processor, and a rendering module that is executed by a graphics processor) to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary. This is consistent with the PEG found in the MPEP 2106.
For claims 2, 12, the creation of one or more artistic non-fungible tokens upon a home purchase or down payment, is considered to be a further recitation to the same abstract idea of claim 1. No further elements are recited as additional elements except for a further claiming of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 3, 13, reciting the metaverse and the virtual homes and virtual land is reciting the use of the claimed invention in a virtual world, such as is done by using computers. Similar to that stated for claim 1, the use of a computer and performing the method in the virtual world (metaverse) is simply linking the abstract idea to computer implementation and a digital world. This does not represent more than an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea, where the computer is simply being sued as a tool. See MPEP2106.05(f). The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 4, 14, the determining of land based on the characteristics of a 3D NFT is a further recitation to the abstract idea of claim 1. This is just claiming the use of data to determine available land where the determining step is part of the abstract idea, as was set forth for claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 5, 6, 15, the claimed rendering of the home based on one or more specifications and minting into an NFT, is reciting more about the abstract idea of claim 1. The claimed rendering module executed by the at least one processor is considered to be an additional element that is reciting a link to generic computing technology for execution of the steps that define the abstract idea. This does not provide for integration at the 2nd prong or significantly more at step 2B, see MPEP2106.05(f). The same rationale set forth for claims 1 and 11 is applicable to the claimed rendering module. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 7, 16, the creation of the legal entity and one or more non-fungible tokens is considered to be a further recitation to the abstract idea of claim 1. The creation of a legal entity is itself an abstract idea that is a legal interaction or legal concept that also would be part of the certain method of organizing human activities. The creation of the tokens is broadly recited and is also part of the abstract idea. No additional elements are recited for consideration. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 8, 17, the transfer of ownership as claimed is a further recitation to the same abstract idea of claim 1. This can be done by people and is only something that exists in the human mind as far as a right is concerned (ownership). A token itself will be the same regardless of who owns it because who owns it does not necessarily define the token itself. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 9, 18, determining land based on a user preference is also part of the abstract idea of claim 1. This is just using the requirements or desires of a home purchaser to find the land for their home. This is part of the abstract idea. The sales module has been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 19, the rendering to scale the home and land selected by the user is part of the abstract idea. This can be done by hand by a human. The recitation to the rendering module executed by the at least one processor, is claiming a link to generic computing technology. This does not provide for integration at the 2nd prong or significantly more at step 2B, see MPEP2106.05(f). The same rationale set forth for claims 1 and 11 is applicable to the claimed rendering module of claim 19.
For claim 10, the abstract idea is considered to be further defined by the elements of:
render to scale the first modular home and an available land selected by the user and
periodically query one or more external land databases to retrieve updated land availability data; and
dynamically compare the retrieved land data with a stored geometric model of the first modular home to determine spatial compatibility based on footprint dimensions and lot orientation
locally store recently retrieved land availability data,
compare newly retrieved land data with cached data to identify changes in availability, and
dynamically adjust polling frequency based on detected change rates, user-defined notification urgency, and bandwidth constraints,
automatically updates the graphical display of the first modular home on the available land based on changes in lot boundaries or orientation
The above functions are capable of being perform by people manually. A person can render to scale as claimed, can query databases as claimed, can make comparisons as claimed, can adjust polling frequency and can update a display. The claimed elements of the use of modules to perform the recited functions above, the applicant is instructing one to use a computer as a tool to execute the further functions recited that are part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The polling engine, matching engine, cache subsystem, delta detection engine, throttling controller and the rendering module, are recitations to using modules that are executed by a graphics processor. This is reciting computer implementation for the abstract idea and does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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) 1, 9, 11, 18, 19, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (11244412) in view of Eraker et al. (20050288958) and further in view of Sinnard et al. (7733351).
For claims 1, 9, 11, 18, 20, Phillips discloses a system and method for matching prospective buyers of homes (not constructed yet) to sellers of homes and lots (land). The system uses computers connected by a network to a server, see figure 2 and the associated discussion from Phillips in column 6, lines 12-19. The system of Phillips satisfies the claimed at least one database at least one processor that is executing modules to accomplish the claimed functions. Phillips is for not yet constructed homes and satisfies the limitation reciting “modular” homes available for purchase. The term modular is non-functional descriptive material that does not define anything to the home itself nor the specifications that are received and searched for by the system.
Phillips discloses allowing a user to specify what kind of home they want in terms of user preferences (location, size, various other criteria), and then the system can match the user’s selection to land (lot, parcel) that the home can be built on. See column 8, line 24-58 where it is disclosed that the system can receive the selection of a home type and other preferences from a user so that the database can be searched for matching results. This satisfies what is claimed because upon receiving the specification for a desired home available for purchase, the system determines available lots based on the selected home type and notifies the user of the results via a listing on a display. When a match is found for a selected home type and lots that are available are found, the results are displayed to the user. Color coding is used to distinguish available lots from unavailable lots as is set forth in lines 53-58 of column 8.
Not disclosed is that there is a notification module that queries a database in real time with updating of land availability data, and that is used to notify a user when land becomes available that matches the specification from the user (for the home).
Not disclosed by Phillips is that a scale accurate rendering of the home overlaid on a parcel of land is provided via a graphical representation.
Eraker teaches a system and method for property searches, that includes updated notifications when new search results are found based on updating a saved search. See paragraph 090 and 099 where it is disclosed that the system allows a user to save a search so that automatic email notifications can be received for updated search results, which are inherently based on real time querying of a database for new results that are saved. Having a search performed on a routine or periodic basis to obtain updated information about land availability, and being notified of new results is something that is old and well known in the art of searches and for real estate searches specifically. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Phillips with the ability to perform automated updated property and land searches with updating of land availability data, and to provide automatic notifications to users when new results are found, as taught by Eraker, such as when new land becomes available and is a match to a previously saved search. This would yield predictable results of allowing for a search to be saved so that a user can be notified when new search results are available. This would be a desirable feature to add to Philips and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to the scale accurate overlay of the home on a parcel boundary of land, the examiner notes that Phillips discloses that a rendering is made of the lot and the home, see figure 7, box 715 for the lot rendering and figure 9 for the home rendering. Column 9, lines 64 to column 10, line 13, teaches that a user can view the home using a 3D video model. However this does not account for the claimed home being overlaid on a parcel boundary for a parcel of land in a scale accurate manner.
Sinnard teaches a method of providing a scaled representation of an inside or outside space. Paragraph 023 teaches that a visual representation can be made of a property (a house) on land, such as a representation of a house on a 70 acre horse ranch that is drawn to scale. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Phillips with a rendering that is to scale and that is an overlay of the home on a parcel of land. This would yield the predictable result of allowing one to visualize a home on a parcel of land in a scale accurate manner.
For claim 19, as best understood by the examiner due to 112b issues, the rendering that was addressed for claim 11 satisfies what is claimed. Additionally, the examiner notes that Phillips discloses that a rendering is made of the lot and the home, see figure 7, box 715 for the lot rendering and figure 9 for the home rendering. Column 9, lines 64 to column 10, line 13, teaches that a user can view the home using a 3D video model. Both the home and the lot are rendered to scale as claimed in Phillips. This satisfies what is broadly recited in claim 19.
Claim(s) 3, 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (11244412) in view of Eraker et al. (20050288958) in view of Sinnard et al. (7733351) and further in view of Decentraland NPL reference.
For claims 3, 13, not disclosed by Phillips is that the system is used in the metaverse so that virtual homes and virtual land can be bought and sold.
The NPL reference to Decentraland discloses that it was known in the art back in 2017 to buy and sell virtual real estate in the metaverse. The reference refers to players and the fact that Decentraland is like a game.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Phillips for use in the metaverse and with virtual homes and virtual land, as is already known in the art. This would yield the predictable result of allowing users of the metaverse to benefit from the system of Phillips when looking to construct a home on not yet purchased land.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection of the claims is not persuasive. The applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the reply that the claims recite more than generic data matching, and solve a problem for computer systems used for real estate transactions. This argument is summarizing the invention at such a high level of generality that it amounts to a general allegation that is not persuasive. The applicant also argues that stale data is prevented by continuously querying databases. The examiner notes that the argued element is considered to be part of the abstract idea and does not serve to improve technology in any manner. Receiving updated information so that one does not have “stale” information is not an improvement to technology in any manner. The argument is not persuasive.
The notification element of the claims that has been argued as improving technology is also something that is part of the abstract idea and does not render the claims eligible. The notification to a user, even in an automatic fashion, is an element that is part of the abstract idea. The fact that the notification uses a computer is an additional element, but the computer is only being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea and does not serve to improve technology; therefore, it does not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application or recite significantly more. Using a computer to send a notification does not result in the computer or technology being improved. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant also argues that the claims recite improved graphical processing performance and visualization through CPU-based scale overlays. This is not persuasive. The claims do recite “wherein the rendering module provides a technical improvement by enabling real-time visualization of home-to-parcel compatibility using scale-accurate graphical overlays generated by the graphics processor”; however, the claimed improvement per the claim itself is the enabling of a real time visualization of the home to parcel and that uses an accurate scaled representation. This is considered to be part of the abstract idea, and does not serve to improve technology in any manner. The argument is not persuasive for this reason. A “to scale” rendering with an overlay can be accomplished by using overhead projector overlays or by placing one sheet on another to create an overlay, as people have done for many years prior to the invention of modern day computing devices. There is nothing claimed that amounts to an improved graphical processing technique to product a to scale overlay visualization. The argument is not persuasive for this reason.
Also, as far as claiming any improved graphical processing, none is recited in the claims. There is no improved graphical processing technique to increase performance recited in the claims as the applicant alleges. Claiming that the graphical processing is done for a to scale visualization is claiming the end result to be achieved, not the manner in which the processing occurs at the computer level such that one could argue that technology is being improved. The applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the actual scope of the claims that simply recites the end result to be achieved, not a particular way that a computer is performing graphical processing that would serve to improve performance of the graphical processing or a computer. The reliance upon and citation to Enfish is noted, but is not persuasive to show that the claims serve to improve technology. The claims are not reciting an improvement in the way a computer processes data and graphically renders data in a scaled accurate visualization of the home on a parcel of land. The argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims in this regard as the claims do not recite what has been argued. The 101 rejection is being maintained due to the traversal not being persuasive.
The traversal of the prior art rejections is not persuasive. The applicant relies upon the amended claims for arguing why the claims are allowable over prior art. The arguments are considered to be moot based on the new grounds of rejection that is addressing the amended claims. This moots the arguments from the applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626