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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 09/26/2025 have been entered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 and 8 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the instant claims are directed towards an apparatus (machines); thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims, as a whole, describe quantifiable attributes of data (collected and stored) that are evaluated and judged to be the most advantageous to arrive at a final suggested bid. These actions describe a mental process of observations (select those bids), evaluations (determine magnitude of difference), judgments and opinions (compare and suggest). A mental process is categorized as an abstract idea.
Claim 1 contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
An artificially intelligent communications apparatus, comprising:
(a) a central processing unit;
(b) a first database storing a numerically quantifiable first attribute, said first database being in communication with said central processing unit;
(c) a second database storing a numerically quantifiable second attribute, said second database being in communication with said central processing unit;
(d) a third database storing a numerically quantifiable third attribute, said third database being in communication with said central processing unit;
(e) an input communications channel for receiving a plurality of bids in a particular auction for a particular property, each of said bids comprising a numerical value for the first, second and third numerically quantifiable attributes and bid identification information;
(f) a non-volatile memory bearing a software program, said software program controlling said central processing unit:
to store, for each bid, said first, second and third numerically quantifiable attributes and their associated bid identification information together with information whether the bid was selected,
for a particular auction select those bids in which said second and third numerically quantifiable attributes are the same or within a specified numerical range and store the same in a first normalized database,
for a particular auction select those bids in which said first and third numerically quantifiable attributes are the same or within a specified numerical range and store the same in a second normalized database,
for a particular auction select those bids in which said first and second numerically quantifiable attributes are the same or within a specified numerical range and store the same in a third normalized database,
for said first numerically quantifiable attribute determine a magnitude of difference in said first numerically quantifiable attribute causing a bid selection compared to less favorable rejected bids within said first normalized database by comparing bids within said first normalized database to each other to generate a first marginal driver;
for said second numerically quantifiable attribute determine a magnitude of difference in said second numerically quantifiable attribute causing a bid selection compared to less favorable rejected bids within said second normalized database by comparing bids within said second normalized database to each other to generate a second marginal driver; and
for said third numerically quantifiable attribute determine a magnitude of difference in said third numerically quantifiable attribute causing a bid selection compared to less favorable rejected bids within said third normalized database by comparing bids within said third normalized database to each other to generate a third marginal driver; and
(g) comparing, a selected bid from an agent to other bids on the same property based on an advantage associated with the selected bid, the advantage based on the magnitude of difference for at least one of said first numerically quantifiable attribute, said second numerically quantifiable attribute, or said third numerically quantifiable attribute;
(h) generate a suggested bid derived from a marginal driver and a numerically quantifiable attribute associated with the advantage; and
(i) providing the suggested bid to the agent for amending the selected bid.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claim 1 recites only the following additional elements:
(a) a central processing unit;
(b) a first database;
(c) a second database;
(d) a third database;
(e) an input communications channel;
(f) a non-volatile memory bearing a software program, said software program controlling said central processing unit;
a first normalized database;
a second normalized database;
a third normalized database.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [64-65 and 95-97], and Figures 2 and 10, as filed. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (a central processing unit; a first database; a second database; a third database; an input communications channel; a non-volatile memory bearing a software program, said software program controlling said central processing unit; a first normalized database; a second normalized database; a third normalized database), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 8, 11, and 14, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. References to term of exclusive representation, commission, or price bid for listing; historical data; and broker sales history, including successful sales are further refinements of the data that is stored and make up the quantifiable attributes that are evaluated and judged. Thus, they are directed to the abstract idea identified. Furthermore, these claims just recite implementing the abstract idea on a computer – the apparatus of claim 1. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 9, 10, 12, and 13, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. References to comparing bids, amending bids, and, applying at least one weighting factor and determining a magnitude of difference between bid attributes, are further refinements of the evaluation to be performed in order to make a judgment or opinion as to what is the best bid. Therefore, they are directed to the abstract idea identified. Furthermore, these claims just recite implementing the abstract idea on a computer - the apparatus of claim 1. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1 and 8 – 14 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Claims Distinguished Over Prior Art
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Based upon updated research directed to the amended claims, the Examiner maintains the determination discussed within the Office Action filed 03/19/2025.
Regarding claims 8 – 14, based on their dependency to claim 1, and containing further limiting elements, are also not disclosed by the prior art.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 8 – 14 are distinguished over the prior art.
Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections within this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 11. Applicant’s arguments contend that the amended claims provide a “…specific improvement to the complex technology of online real-estate matching of agents and home sellers in relation to the arrangement structure and fairness associated therewith.” See page 12. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Analysis at Step 2A (the Alice/Mayo test) includes determining at Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Relevant considerations here include an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). In short, online real-estate matching of agents and home sellers in relation to the arrangement structure and fairness associated therewith is not a technical field. Real estate has a long and practiced history of agents and home sellers generating and presenting offers to list a real property for sale. Intertwined with this market place is the evaluating of a plurality of data associated with the agents, the property, and numerical variables associated with pricing and commissions. Recent real estate markets were known by agents in the field to have multiple offers to purchase a home. Thus, evaluating all the offers, and judging which terms would be best for each buyer/seller is an evaluation process that each person would perform in their own way. Thus, each has their own quantifiable attributes and opinion on what is a favorable bid. Therefore, the method described above, which are akin to the instant claims, are deeply rooted in a mental process and not in technology or technical field.
Further analysis at Step 2A (the Alice/Mayo test) shows the instant claims rely on use of a computer for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Many of the instant claim elements recite these common tasks: storing a numerically quantifiable first, second, third attribute; store the same in a first, second, third, normalized database; thus, they recite language well known to not provide for integration. Further, these elements rely on generically recited devices, thereby further illustrating a general-purpose computer to perform the task. These elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by showing any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next agues a “…concrete artificially intelligent communications apparatus…”, see page 12, and adds, “…provide the output suggested bid to the agent to provide the agent the ability to amend the bid…”. This argument is not persuasive. Similar to the reasoning above, the system components further described on page 12, are generically described and simply instruct one to use a computer. Specifically, this description includes: “…a system 332 for implementing the method of Figures 5-9 is illustrated. System 332 is based in a publicly accessible network, such as the Internet 334. The inventive system is hosted by a computer 336 which comprises a central processing unit ("CPU"), more particularly CPU 338 in Figure 10. CPU 338 is programmed by software comprising a plurality of subroutines for the purpose of carrying out the steps of the method described in connection with Figures 5-9 through the use of communications execution software 340.” This describes a broad, general setup to perform the method claimed and does not show integration into a practical application. Finally, steps for suggesting a bid and amending a bid are not technology-centric. These steps describe the evaluations and opinions conducted when reviewing the stored data. Thus, they are refinements to a mental process and are not directed to a technical improvement. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues about the artificial intelligence used to derive scores and identify a successful bid, and transform an original bid into a suggested bid. See page 12. Applicant points to the “2024 AI-Update” as showing support for this argument, particularly Example 48. See page 13. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Applicant’s invention is rooted in AI technology and shows allowable subject matter.
Example 48 details analysis of claims that reflected the improvement discussed in the disclosure by “reciting details of how the DNN aids in the cluster assignments to correspond to the sources identified in the mixed speech signal, which are then synthesized into separate speech waveforms in the time domain and converted into a mixed speech signal, excluding audio from the undesired sources.” Thus, the Example had claims deeply rooted in the technical aspects of how that AI technology worked (as disclosed) to perform the technical aspects of speech-separation methods. This is not analogous to the instant claims. As Applicant notes, the Specification [0013-0014] discusses problems in the art. Specifically, as argues, the amended, instant claims “… improve the functioning and fairness of an online bid evaluation system…”. See page 14.
First, fairness of online bids is not a technical problem. As Applicant details at [14] this relates to the arrangement between the listing agent and the seller/landlord. Thus, not describing a technical problem and not a persuasive argument. Next, there is no technical problem identified within the instant disclosure that this technology may overcome. Again, [14] refers to the only problem as the one discussed earlier. In fact, the solution desired is an effective marketing strategy (i.e., suggested bid). In order to obtain an improved bid method, the claims recite several steps that can be performed; namely, collecting (storing data), determining differences of quantifiable attributes (evaluating), comparing bids (evaluating), and suggesting a bid (opining). Thus, the claims describe how to improve a certain bid evaluation process, (a mental process and an abstract idea), and do not improve any technology or technical field. Applicant’s reliance on Example 48 is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Penner discusses dynamic multi-factor optimization of online transactions. Singh discloses a method for buying and selling real estate at an optimal price on the internet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629