DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Remarks and Amendments filed 12/10/2025.
Claims 1, 8, 11, 19 have been amended.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-20 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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 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.
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 9, 10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 9, 10, 17, and 18 are recited as depending from non-existent claims; i.e. they depend from claims which now have been canceled. It is no longer clear whether these claims are intended to be in independent form or dependent form and if they are intended to be in dependent form then it is not clear to which claim(s) they are intended to depend. This introduces issues regarding ambiguity and antecedent basis for much of the subject matter in each individual claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution only has the examiner endeavored to provide prior art teaching the ideas being recited. Nonetheless, the claims lack clarity and are held to be indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
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, 2, 8-11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1, 11, 19:
assigning, …a buyer identification code to the buyer associated with the buyer information and engaged with the first buyer agent/broker;
determining, …using the buyer identification code that the buyer is already engaged with the first buyer agent/broker;
…a notice to the one of the second buyer agent/brokerbrokers selected by the byer that the buyer is already associated engaged with the first buyer agent/broker; and …a notice to the first buyer agent/broker that the buyer provided the buyer information to the second buyer agent/broker.
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. 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).
That is, the steps as drafted are nothing more than a business decision to associate a buyer with a first real estate agent and if buyer makes some attempt to communicate with a second real estate agent, then facilitate a notification to all parties involved in potential real-estate transactions/agreements (or contracts) according to industry accepted business practices, e.g. which are known to include such practices as notifying buyers, sellers, and agents of “Exclusive Buyer-Broker Agreements” which are legally binding contracts associating buyer and agent/broker and which specify at least a length of time a buyer is exclusively committed to working with a particular agent and/or broker; e.g. where such time may be for limited duration of a single home showing, or for 30 days, or any time-frame, etc… and thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Stated another way, the claims are recited only at a very high-level of generality and abstraction regarding steps necessary to communicate terms of generic real-estate transaction agreements (e.g. an “Exclusive Buyer-Broker Agreement”) to parties affected by such agreement (i.e. each agent/broker with whom a buyer has contacted for services). There is no technical problem being solved here and no technical solution being claimed to solve a technical problem. These steps are entirely directed towards business decisions. Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components (e.g. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a memory, processor, repositories, etc…) which may be used to facilitate the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements recited as part of claims 1 and 11, other than those noted supra, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this real estate transactions/agreements, e.g. contracts) or serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data storage, receipt, and transmission of data). The claimed computer components are recited at a very high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations of claims 1, 11, 19 exemplified in the features of claim 19, are as follows: “A method, comprising: receiving buyer information at an agent user interface used by a first buyer agent/broker, the buyer information received from a buyer user interface used by a buyer to engage the first buyer agent/broker; transmitting the buyer information to an evaluation system; providing, at a buyer user interface provided by an evaluation system, at plurality of selectable links, each of the plurality of selectable links corresponding to properties listed for sale; receiving, at the buyer user interface, a selection of a property of the properties listed for modifying the buyer user interface to display information about the property of the properties selected, the display information comprising a location of the property, a description of the property, a price of the property, and a list of second buyer agent/brokers; receiving, by the evaluation system, an input from the buyer, the input comprising a selection of one of the second buyer/agent/brokers; …transmitting a notice…”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “receiving” data, nor transmitting data, nor of modifying a display to present data (which at this high-level of generality is merely display of data on a generic interface), nor is it is technique or technical solution of storage of buyer information, etc… nor a technical solution for transmitting data (e.g. a notice). The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts within an online computing or networked environment, or link them to a field of use (e.g. real estate transactions/agreements, e.g. contracts) or are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data-gathering, storage, or transmittal) as pertains to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. real estate transactions/agreements, e.g. contracts), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering and transmission). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claim 2 recites the following: “further comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computer, cause the computer to perform the act comprising receiving, at seller repository, seller information of a seller associated with each of the plurality of properties...” However, receipt of data and storage of such data, when recited at this high-level of generality is insignificant extra-solution activity and is not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are therefore patent ineligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cole et al (U.S. 20140279237 A1; hereinafter, "Cole"), in view of Eaton (U.S. 2005/0096926 A1; hereinafter, "Eaton"), and Marino (U.S. 20080281609 A1; hereinafter, "Marino").
Claims 1, 11, 19: (currently Amended)
Pertaining to claims 1, 11, 19 exemplified in the limitations of method claim 19, Cole teaches the following:
A method, comprising:
receiving buyer information at an agent user interface used by a first buyer agent/broker,
the buyer information received from a buyer user interface used by a buyer to engage the first buyer agent/broker (Cole, see at least Figs. 3 and 4, e.g. steps #401 - #425 and at least [0029]-[0030] regarding application server provides an interface to client 110, 111 for web application 401; and per [0034]-[0036] teaching: “…buyer information [buyer information] is requested and upon submission [transmitted to and received by evaluation system] is entered into the buyer pool database 301…” and “…[If] the buyer 132 is contracted to be represented by a buyer agent [a first buyer agent/broker], the buyer agent [first buyer agent/broker] is alerted 425 regarding the buyer's 132 interest [i.e. a type of buyer information] in the property.…” and Cole describes this alert regarding the buyer’s 132 interest as being generated in response to “…a buyer 132 accesses the web application 401 [i.e. via buyer user interface] as discussed above and the data entry form generated by the web application 309 requests the buyer 132 to indicate whether he or she is interested 403 in a property for sale…”; note per at least [0036] and Fig. 4, step #411, “buyer information” is received by the system and depending on whether the system has already associated such buyer information with a “buyer agent”, the received “buyer information” is either transmitted to the “buyer agent” or stored in “buyer pool” and/or also transmitted to “seller agent/agency”);
transmitting the buyer information to an evaluation system (Cole, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least [0034]-[0036], teaching: “…buyer information [buyer information] is requested and upon submission [transmitted to evaluation system] is entered into the buyer pool database 301…” and “…If the buyer 132 indicates interest 405, e.g., through selecting a "radio button," or the like, and submitting the document [transmitting the buyer information to an evaluation system], the web application generates a display at 407 to determine [an evaluation] whether the buyer 132 is already represented by a buyer agent 407…”; e.g. an evaluation is conducted by Cole’s system per at least Fig. 4 step #409 where an evaluation of whether the buyer is already represented by a ”buyer agent” is conducted.);
[…]
Furthermore, Cole as shown, teaches the following:
providing, at a buyer user interface provided by an evaluation system, a plurality of selectable links, each of the plurality of selectable links corresponding to properties listed for sale (Cole, see citations noted supra, e.g. per [0005] in view of [0034], Cole explicitly teaches: “…the data entry form generated by the web application 309 requests the buyer 132 to indicate whether he or she is interested 403 in a property for sale… the buyer 132 indicates interest 405, e.g., through selecting a "radio button," [selectable link] or the like…”; the difference between the teachings of Cole and the prior art is that Cole may not teach in a single embodiment “a plurality” even though it is implied that he provides a plurality of his "radio button(s)" [selectable links] for each property of interest. Nonetheless, Cole is also found to teach, e.g. per at least [0005], known MLS listings; i.e. multiple listing [plurality of listings] services which provide a plurality of property listings are already well-known. In view of these teachings, the Examiner finds Cole provides motivation to provide a plurality of links, via an interface to such an MLS listings service, at least one selectable link for indicating interest in each of the plurality of listings which may be given by such an MLS listing service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention provide Cole’s buyer’s user interface to such MLS listings with a plurality of his "radio button," [selectable link] or the like, each corresponding to at least one of the plurality of properties which may be listed for sale, e.g. where such selectable links may be used to indicate interest in buying each of such properties. because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
receiving, at the buyer user interface, a selection of a property of the properties listed for sale (Cole, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0034]-[0035]: “…the buyer 132 indicates interest 405, e.g., through selecting a "radio button," or the like…”;);
modifying the buyer user interface to display information about the property of the properties selected, the display information comprising a location of the property, a
description of the property, a price of the property, and a list of second buyer agent/brokers (Cole, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least Fig. 3, and [0034]-[0035] in view of at least [0028] and [0005]-[0006], e.g.: “…Prospective buyers may access the online MLS in the area in which they look to purchase property to find information regarding such property including price [a price of the property], area [location], school districts [a type of description of the property], etc. Often the MLS will also provide the listing agency or listing agent [a list of second buyer/agent brokers] whom the buyer, or buyer's agent, should contact for a tour of the property, and more information…”; In view of these teachings, Examiner finds it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cole’s buyer’s interface of his “web application” to display the information which Cole teaches is commonly provided via interfaces to known MLS listings such that his interface to his “web application” provides information at least as useful as the MLS listings upon which Cole’s invention is claimed to be an improvement and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
receiving by the evaluation system, an input from the buyer, the input comprising a selection of one of the second buyer agent/brokers (Cole, again per at least [0034]: “…a buyer 132 accesses the web application 401 as discussed above and the data entry form generated by the web application 309 requests the buyer 132 to indicate whether he or she is interested 403 in a property for sale and contacting [selecting] the listing agent 131 [one of the second buyer agent/brokers] associated with the agency 130 listing the property for sale… If the buyer 132 indicates interest 405 [receiving by the evaluation system an input], e.g., through selecting a "radio button," or the like, and submitting the document, the web application generates…”; i.e. the web application [evaluation system] receives the buyer’s input via buyer’s selection of a "radio button," or the like, and submitting the document which is an indication of interest in contacting [selecting] the listing agent 131 [one of the second buyer agent/brokers]);
Although Cole teaches the above limitations, including “buyer information”, which heavily implies some type of identification of the buyer to enable tracking and associating Cole’s buyer with their specific buyer information, he may not explicitly teach “buyer identification code”. Nonetheless, Cole in view of Eaton teaches the following:
assigning, by the evaluation system, a buyer identification code to the buyer associated with the buyer information and engaged with the first buyer agent/broker (Eaton, Figs. 5A, 5B and [0085]-[0089], teaching: a “Buyer_ID(int)” [buyer identification code] is associated/assigned to a buyer and stored in relational tables to indicate relationships to other information including such as stored in tables 300 and 311 such as a buyer’s interest in real estate, e.g. “Interest_ID(int)” and existing relationships with other agents such as “BuyingAgent_lD (int)” [first buyer agent/broker identifier]; e.g. note: [0085]-[0089], e.g.: “…FIG. 5A illustrates the fields as they can be input for RealEstate 300. Each record in this table represents a listing…”; the fields include “Buyer_ID(int)” [buyer identification code], “Interest_ID(int)”, “BuyingAgent_lD (int)” [first buyer agent/broker identifier]; and see also at least [0199], etc…); determining, by the evaluation system, [using the buyer identification code] that the buyer is already engaged with the first buyer agent/broker (Cole in view of Eaton, e.g. see again citations noted supra, e.g. Cole at least [0034], teaching, e.g.: “…If the buyer 132 indicates interest 405, e.g., through selecting a "radio button," or the like, and submitting the document, the web application generates a display at 407 to determine whether the buyer 132 is already represented by [already engaged with] a buyer agent 407 [the first buyer agent/broker]…” and Eaton per Figs. 5A, 5B and [0085]-[0089], teaching: a “Buyer_ID(int)” [buyer identification code], etc…);
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely applying a known technique of Eaton (directed towards a technique of associating/assigning a “Buyer_ID(int)” [buyer identification code] to a buyer who is also associated with other information characterizing the buyer such as “Interest_ID(int)” and existing relationships with other agents such as “BuyingAgent_lD (int)” [first buyer agent/broker identifier]) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Cole (already directed towards a system/method which associates a buyer with “buyer information” and also with at least a buyer agent/broker) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Eaton to the device/method of Cole in order to assign, by Cole’s system [the evaluation system], a “Buyer_ID(int)” [buyer identification code] to Cole’s buyer associated with his “buyer information” and engaged with a buyer agent 407 [the first buyer agent/broker], as a mechanism by which to enable Cole’s determination of whether his buyer 132 is “already represented by [already engaged with] a buyer agent 407 [the first buyer agent/broker]”, e.g. via checking a table as given by Eaton which associates a “Buyer_ID(int)” [buyer identification code] with any existing “BuyingAgent_lD (int)” [first buyer agent/broker identifier], and because Cole and Eaton are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Although Cole/Eaton teach the above limitations, they may not explicitly teach the below recited nuances. However, regarding the below claimed features, Cole/Eaton in view of Marino teaches the following:
transmitting a notice to the one of the second buyer agent/brokers selected by the [buyer] that the buyer is already engaged with the first buyer agent/broker; and transmitting a notice to the first buyer agent/broker that the buyer provided the buyer information to the second buyer agent/broker. (Marino, see at least [0007]-[0008] teaching: “…Problems may occur if this agency relationship is not recognized/made known. For example, a buyer's agent [first buyer agent/broker] may be deprived of a potential commission, or the buyer may be subject to being diverted to another agent if a host agent [second buyer agent/broker] is not put on notice [receives transmitted notice] that an open house attendee is already represented by a buyer's agent [first buyer agent/broker]….”; see also at least [0057] teaching: “…Automated Email Generation 160 may be configured to automatically send emails to… users. For example, automated emails to… his or her agent 164 [first buyer agent/broker], if applicable… Automated emails 166 may alert a host agent [second buyer agent/broker]…”; Marino’s teachings regarding the necessity and importance of recognizing and making “agency relationship” known implies transmitting notices to all affected parties such as “buyer's agent” [first buyer agent/broker] and any other “another agent” [second buyer agent/broker] to whom the buyer is attempting to work and to whom “a potential commission” may be “diverted” without such knowledge.)
In view of the aforementioned teachings, the Examiner understands there is motivation, provided by Marino, for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method of Cole/Eaton to perform the steps of communicating with both “buyer's agent” [first buyer agent/broker] and any other “another agent” or “host agent” [second buyer agent/broker] to whom the buyer is attempting to contact/communicate regarding purchase of real estate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have performed the steps suggested by Marino including the limitations as claimed within the system/method of Cole/Eaton, e.g. with motivation of avoiding “Problems [which] may occur if this agency relationship is not recognized/made known” to both the “buyer's agent” [first buyer agent/broker] and any other “another agent” [second buyer agent/broker] to whom the buyer is attempting to work and because MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649. Furthermore, "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 2: (Original)
Cole/Eacton/Marino teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, Cole teaches the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, further comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computer, cause the computer to perform the act comprising receiving, at seller repository, seller information of a seller associated with each of the plurality of properties (Cole, see at least [0039], e.g.: “…FIG. 7, beginning with 701 in which the seller 132 accesses the web application 309'. The web application 309' is configured to request the seller indicate desire to engage an agent 703 and determines the geographic area in which the subject property is located at step 705, for example, from data submitted by the seller 132 via the data entry template 603…”)
Claims 8, 9, 10, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cole, Eaton, Marino, and further in view of Dejanovic (U.S. 2021/0224936 A1; hereinafter, "Dejanovic").
Claim 8 (Currently amended)
Although Cole/Eaton/Marino teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends, they may not explicitly teach the below recited nuance. However, regarding this feature, Cole in view of Dejanovic teaches the following:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein agent information for at least one agent available to act as buyer/agent for the buyer comprises a best agent rate for acting as the buyer agent for the buyer (Dejanovic, see at least [0119]-[0126], teaching, e.g.: “In one embodiment, the platform of the present invention facilitates the real estate transaction by providing a list of approved/user ranked [best rate] real estate lawyers [agent information] to complete documentation for the transaction from the service database, to ensure a smooth transaction between buyer and seller related to purchase agreements, mortgage documents, title transfer documents etc. …In one embodiment, the portal presents sellers and buyers with lists of service providers that are ranked in order of client ratings. Service providers can include any combination of: appraisers, …, lawyers, and other service providers [agent information] that may be required by sellers and buyers to facilitate a real estate transaction…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Dejanovic which is applicable to a known base device/method of Cole to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Dejanovic to the device/method of Cole in order to perform the limitation in question because Cole and Dejanovic are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 9, 17: (Original)
Cole/Eaton/Marino/Dejanovic teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, Dejanovic teaches the following: …wherein the plurality of selectable links to the property information about the selected property of the plurality of properties offered for sale comprises a bank selectable link configured to provide information about a plurality of banks available to provide a loan and a best bank loan rate from each of the plurality of banks (Dejanovic, see at least [0144], teaching, e.g.: “…In one embodiment, the portal provides buyers who enter their financial information with mortgage quotes from financial institutions, and identify the quotes having the best terms [best bank loan rate]. The method can consist of sending out the financial information to subscribing financial institutions, receiving the quotes, and displaying the results to the buyer, or to both the buyer and the seller on their respective dashboards.…”).
Claims 10, 18: (Original)
Cole/Eaton/Marino/Dejanovic teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, Dejanovic teaches the following: … wherein the plurality of selectable links to the property information about the selected property of the plurality of properties offered for sale comprises a transparency score, wherein the transparency score is based on providing one or more of the following: commissions for agents/brokers in an area of the property, bank rates available, experience levels of the agents/brokers in the area of the property, and historical commissions of the agents/brokers in the area of the property (Dejanovic, see at least [0072], teaching, e.g.: “The present invention therefore provides a seamless, simple, fully integrated platform that provides all parties to a real estate related transaction with direct participation and transparency in all steps of the real estate transaction, leading to both lower overall real estate transaction costs for the participants while also dramatically improving the experience for all parties, including buyers, sellers and service providers.”; as the claims do not stipulate any particular score or scoring method, this is open to interpretation and reads on Dejanovic’s disclosure. See, also Dejanovic at [0146])
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cole, Eaton, Marino, and further in view of Dejanovic (U.S. 2021/0224936 A1; hereinafter, "Dejanovic") and Merati (US. 2019/0037134 A1; hereinafter, “Merati”)
Claim 20: (Original)
Although Cole/Eaton/Marino teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, they may not explicitly teach the below recited nuance. However, regarding this feature, Cole in view of Dejanovic and Merati teaches the following:
The method of claim 19, wherein the property information comprises photographs of the property (Dejanovic, see at least Fig. 4 and associated disclosure, e.g. “property description” “Photos” and see Fig. 33 and [0170] e.g.: “FIG. 33 is a screenshot of a web page for prompting
the addition of photos of the property, in an eleventh step of the process…”), videos of the property (Merati 2019/0037134, see at least [0023], teaching e.g.: “…Once the entire property has been recorded (this may include both interior views as well as exterior views of the property), the app (or another app running on the mobile device or other computer or server) may create a virtual tour by offering one or more video recordings to a buyer via wide-area network 106 and Multiple Listing Service (MLS) server 110, augmented reality server 112 and/or media server 101.…”), current bids on the property (Dejanovic, see at least Fig. 4 “process activity”, e.g.: “Offer Box” and “How many Offers” [bids] and “Path to Closing”: “compare offers * potential buyers/Offers who have pre-approval” and “Offers: listing data in MLS” and per [0178]: “…0178] FIG. 47 is a screenshot of a web page displaying the notification page of a seller dashboard indicating notifications relating to existing offers on properties in the seller's portfolio.”), and a timetable for remaining offers to be received for the property (Dejanovic, see at least Fig. 4: “Offer date (Date when an offers need to be submitted)”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known techniques of Dejanovic and Merati (directed towards including certain types of information as property information which may be conveyed to potential buyers, agents, etc…) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Cole to yield predictable results. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Dejanovic and Merati to the device/method of Cole, such that Cole’s received property information also comprises photographs of the property, videos of the property, current bids on the property, and a timetable for remaining offers to be received for the property because Cole, Dejanovic, and Merati are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q 50/16 Real estate) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 8, 11, 19 and canceled claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, and 16 on 12/10/2025. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 12/10/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 35 USC 112, 101 and 35 USC 103 rejections of the independent claims in view of Cole, Eaton, and Marino.
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).
The following prior art is made of record although not relied upon as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Publication 2013/0131977 A1, to Dickson who discusses a system and method for providing optimized route, mapping, travel, and viewing of real estate properties for sale; e.g. see [0005] where the optimized “route” also includes “…detailed property information for each property on the route and the ability to create notes on each of the properties while viewing the properties.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621