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 01/23/2026.
Claims 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 17-20 are canceled
Claims 1, 9, 23 are amended
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 14-16, and 21-26 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.
Official Notice / Admitted Prior Art
With regard to claims 1, 9, 16, and 23 the common knowledge declared to be well-known has previously been taken to be Applicant admitted prior art because the Applicant failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice (as noted per Final Rejection, mailed 10/29/2024). The fact taken to be Applicant Admitted Prior art is as follows: It was old and well-known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that features of a real-estate property listing of a property which performed well in a market, e.g. selling faster than average, likely contribute to the performance of the property; e.g. the sale of the property faster than average.
To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 (“[I]n the absence of any demand by Applicant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention.”). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice is inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion should be included. Because Applicant failed to traverse Examiner’s Official Notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
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, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 14-16, and 21-26 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, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”)1, 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, 9, 23:
generating an object title for the data object using a natural language processing model
trained to receive the string representation of the set of data and generate the object title, wherein
the object title comprises natural language;
generating an object description for the data object using the natural language processing
model trained to receive the string representation of the set of data and generate the object
description, wherein the object description comprises natural language;
validating the object title and the object description based on a set of validation rules including: determining whether a length of at least one of the object title and the object description is within a predetermined threshold;
in response to determination that the object title and the object description are valid,
causing presentation of the object title and the object description for the data object…;
in response to determination that the object title and the object description are not valid,
transmitting an indication that the object title and the object description are not valid…
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 these steps, as drafted, are a business decision to automate the generation of a title and description of a Real Estate listing, through use of a generic model, and then before presenting results of the model, performing another business decision to check whether the automatically generated title and description meet generic user defined business rules for length and language of the generated title and generated description, and upon validation check either allow the use/display of such automatically generated info (title and description) or send notice that results are not valid (which is another business decision) and thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. There is no technical problem being solved and no technical solution recited in the claims for solving a technical problem – note applicant has not invented any particular “natural language processing model” but instead such model is used as an off-the-shelf tool to implement the business decision. Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components (e.g. a processor, etc…) 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, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, 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 using generic computer components, “link” them to a field of use (i.e. in this case automated real estate listings), or serve as insignificant pre-solution activities (e.g. data receipt and conversion into generic form necessary to be input to a generic “natural language processing model”) or extra-solution activity (e.g. data transmittal, display, etc…). The claimed computer components are recited at a 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 are as follows: “A method comprising: receiving, by a processor, a set of data associated with a data object in a data store, the set of data including object image data, object location data, and object attribute data; converting, by the processor, a first portion of the set of data into character representations and a second portion of the set of data into integer representations, including: performing computer-based image recognition on the object image data to identify aspects of the data object in the object image data and then convert the identified aspects into at least one of: character representations and integer representations; and converting object location data from a first location data format into a second location data format; concatenating, by the processor, the character representations and integer representations into a string representation of the set of data …[display] on a graphical user interface of a client device… [transmitting] to the natural language processing model such that a subsequent object title and a subsequent object description are generated based on a validation result”
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, regardless of the intended use or type of data, nor is it a technical solution for pre-processing data such as “converting” into character representations and/or integer representations, etc… 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 and “link” them to a field of use or are insignificant extra-solution activity 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 “link” the idea to a field of use, or “apply” the idea via generic computing components, or pre-solution or insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 claims 3, 11, 24 recite the following: “wherein the object image data comprises satellite images associated with a location associated with data object” However, a description of data which is to be converted is not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. This description of data does not further illuminate how such conversion is intended to take place – indeed, applicant’s original disclosure is devoid of an inventive means for conversion of such data and instead relies upon known technology. Therefore, as any technique for “conversion” cannot be viewed as applicant’s invention, such feature cannot be anything but insignificant pre-solution activity; i.e. a generic description of what must be performed on data in the most generic of sense before it is acted upon by the idea of “using a natural language processing model trained to receive the string representation of the set of data and generate the object description, wherein the object description comprises natural language…”.
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 therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
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 § 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 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 14-16, and 21-26 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.
Independent claims 1, 9, 23 have been amended in part to recite the following: “training the natural language processing model on a supplemental set of object data, the supplemental set of object data comprising data objects that are selected above a threshold amount of time, wherein the data objects selected above the threshold amount of time provide inputs supplemental processing model for instantaneous booking.” – underline added for emphasis.
Respectfully, the aforementioned underlined phrase is not clear and is not intelligible. What is meant by provide inputs supplemental processing model for instantaneous booking cannot be plausibly interpreted. Therefore, the claims are 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.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation in question to have erroneously included the aforementioned unintelligible phrase, such that the limitation in question reads as follows: training the natural language processing model on a supplemental set of object data, the supplemental set of object data comprising data objects that are selected above a threshold amount of time. Nonetheless, correction and clarification is required.
Additionally, independent claims 1, 9, 23 recite the following: “…and then convert the identified aspects into at least one of: character representations and integer representations; and… concatenating, by the processor, the character representations and integer representations into a string representation of the set of data;” – underlines added for emphasis.
Respectfully, it is not clear whether both character representations and integer representations must be created or not because initially, the claims, as shown supra, appear to indicate that only at least one of: character representations and integer representations must be created, via conversion of “aspects”. However, a subsequent feature, also as shown supra, appears to indicate that both are necessary to perform the “concatenating” step, i.e.: “concatenating, by the processor, the character representations and integer representations into a string representation of the set of data” Because it is not clear whether only at least one of the character representations and integer representations must be created through conversion of identified aspects or whether both must be created, the claims are indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claims to mean that only at least one of: character representations and integer representations is necessary (e.g. only a character representation not an integer representation) and therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the concatenation is not necessary and not performed as there is nothing with which to concatenate the one representation (e.g. the character representation).
Furthermore, as the concatenating step is apparently supposed to result in a “string representation” used as an input to a generic “natural language processing model”, and this step is apparently important to applicant’s steps of generating an “object title” and “object description”, the Examiner interprets the “string representation” as resolving to either the character representations or integer representations absent a concatenation.
Nonetheless, as the scope is not clear, correction is required. The Examiner provides prior art reflecting the prior art’s teachings regarding concatenation of data to a “string” solely to facilitate Applicant’s understanding of the plethora of the prior art upon which applicant’s generic claim features read.
Dependent claims 3-4, 6-7, 11, 14-16, 21-22, and 24-26 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The features recited in claim 16 and 26 are a repeat of features already recited in their respective parent claim (claims 9 and 23) and therefore claims 16 and 26 do not specify a further limitation of the subject matter already claimed. Instead, the subject matter encompassed by claim 16 and 26 is redundant. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3, 4, 9, 11, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Breaker et al. (U.S. 2012/0311431 A1; hereinafter, "Breaker") in view of Walch (U.S. 5,267,332; hereinafter, "Walch”) in view of Burris (U.S. 2020/0043087 A1; hereinafter, "Burris") in view of Pieloka (WO 2013/110767 A1; hereinafter, "Pieloka") and Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
Claims 1, 9, 23, 26: (1, 9, 23 currently amended / 26 previously presented)
Pertaining to claims 1, 9, 23, 26 as exemplified in the method steps of claim 1, Breaker teaches the following:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a set of data associated with a data object in a data store, the set of data including object image data, object location data, and object attribute data (Breaker, Fig. 1 and [0018], e.g.: “FIG. 1 is a high-level block diagram that illustrates a system 100 for generating and maintaining a single property website 102 corresponding to a property listing 104 [a data object in a data store]. The system 100 may include a plurality of data source systems 106 including a Multiple Listing System (MLS) 106a… Each of the data systems 106 may send data feeds [sets of data associated with the listing/object] 106a1, 106b1, 106c1, 106d1, and 106e1 (e.g., text or XML files, etc.) that provide content for a website generator module 108 to create and update the single property website 102….”; per at least [0025]: “…For example, the first data set comprised of data from the first MLS data feed 106al may comprise a first data subset including photographs [object image data], a second data subset including a textual description [object attribute data] of the property, a third data subset including the address [object
PNG
media_image1.png
632
1160
media_image1.png
Greyscale
location data] of the property…”);
[…]
generating an object title for the data object (Breaker, see at least Fig. 1, and 3b; e.g. #102 a generated “domain name” [title] for the listing [data object], and per [0022]: “…After finding and selecting the listing data 308, block 202 may include further instructions to receive a domain name selection corresponding to the listing data 308. In some embodiments, block 202 may use an external system 110 to select a domain name…”) […];
generating an object description for the data object (Breaker, see again at least Figs. 1 and 3a-3d; e.g. the website of Fig. 1 is a description of the listing [object], the description, per at least Fig. 3d, includes a “Description”, as well as other descriptors such as photos, MLS information, directions, interior details, address, price, etc…; note per at least [0027]: “…With reference to FIG. 3d, block 208 may format and store various data as extracted from the data feeds to generate the single property website 102. For example, the single property website may include MLS data 340 such as price, general facts, a description [object description] of the property listing [data object]…”)[…]; and
Although Breaker teaches the above limitations, he may not explicitly teach the steps of converting such received sets of MLS data [the set of data associated with a data object] as is claimed below. However, Breaker in view of Walch teaches the following:
converting, by the processor, a first portion of the set of data into character representations and a second portion of the set of data into integer representations, including:
performing computer-based image recognition on the object image data to identify aspects of the data object in the object image data and then convert the identified aspects into at least one of: character representations and integer representations (Walch, see at least Abstract, Fig. 7, Fig. 10, [3:30-45], and [14:10-15:35], e.g.: “…In short, the reference key [converted first portion of data] is a string of characters [character representations] which distinguishes images from each other. The purpose of the key is to identify images with very similar characteristics [to identify aspects of the data object in the object image data] for a more detailed analysis. The reference series [second portion of data] is a string of integers [integer representations], each of which maintains a tabulation of the number of nodes which has a specific number of links… The numeric reference series is another attribute of an image which is created to facilitate the recognition process. Unlike the reference key which is used for matching, the series is used to screen image comparisons to determine if a match is even possible…”; i.e. a set of data is converted into a concatenated string of characters [character representations] and a concatenated string of integers [integer representations]. Furthermore, the format of received data is changed [from a first format into a second format] as a part of the aforementioned process.); and
converting object location data from a first location data format into a second location data format (Walch, see at least Fig. 4 and associated disclosure regarding illustration of bit mapping matrix data into memory locations, etc… Examiner notes that this feature as claimed is non-functional as relates to the entire remainder of the claims and claim features; i.e. this claimed change is format is not further referenced nor relied upon in the claims as recited. Therefore, the change in format does not appear to be restricted by any other claim feature and a change in storage location and/or mapping, as discussed by Walch, would appear to be a change in format of data upon which this feature reads.);
concatenating, by the processor, the character representations and integer representations into a string representation of the set of data (Examiner notes the 35 USC 112(b) rejection guiding claim interpretation. Walch, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least Figs. 10, 14, 27 e.g. “READ KEY AS BYTE STRING”; as well as see [3:30-45], and [14:10-15:35], e.g.: “…In short, the reference key [converted first portion of data] is a string of characters [character representations concatenated into a string] which distinguishes images from each other…” and per [14:10-15:35]:…
PNG
media_image2.png
292
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
);
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely applying known techniques of Walch which are applicable to a known base device/method of Breaker 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 Walch to the device/method of Breaker because Walch is pertinent to the data analysis of Breaker 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 Breaker/Walch teach the aforementioned limitations upon which the below features depend, they may not explicitly teach using a natural language processing model as recited below. However, regarding these features, Breaker/Walch in view of Burris teaches the following:
using a natural language processing model trained to receive the string representation of the set of data and generate the object title, wherein the object title comprises natural language; and receive the string representation of the set of data and generate the object description, wherein the object description comprises natural language; […] receiving feedback data for the object title or the object description for the data object; incorporating the feedback data into a training dataset of the natural language processing model; and training the natural language processing model based on the training dataset (Burris, see at least Fig. 1 and [0020] regarding e.g. training engine 151, and see at least [0013]-[0016], teaching: “…conventional software programs may not be adequately suited to handle the unique challenges of natural language processing in the context of real estate and leasing management… Aspects of the present disclosure address the above and other deficiencies by implementing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) based digital leasing assistant (also referred to herein as “the leasing AI platform”) to address the shortcomings in current property management software… In some embodiments, the leasing AI platform implements [uses] a machine learning knowledge system that uses natural language processing [a natural language processing model trained to take string representations of the set of data) to enhance source content structured around certain electronic communications directed to real-estate and leasing transactions…”; per at least [0026]: “…The message classification engine 111 may also preprocess any received message, such as message 140, prior to using the message for training of the set of machine learning models 114 and/or applying the set of trained machine learning models 114 to the messages…”; and per [0054]: “…the leasing AI platform can handle most of the administrative activities that previously required a larger team of agents…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely application of a combination of known techniques of Burris (directed towards using and training a natural language processing AI model to generate marketing information such as property description, photos, pricing, adding listings to online listing sources, etc…), which are applicable to the base device/method of Breaker/Walch (already directed towards automatically generating online property listings and associated data) to yield predictable results; i.e. Burris’ natural language processing model as noted per at least [0026] necessarily is trained to receive data sets which are “pre-processed” and therefore it would be obvious to use the techniques of Walch to pre-process Burris’ data such that Burris’ natural language processing model is trained to receive data in the format as noted by Walch, e.g. as string representations, especially as these techniques are taught as being useful to both facilitate the recognition process and to screen image comparisons to determine if a match is even possible which would be useful in the machine learning model techniques of Burris and applied towards the automatic online listing generation system/method of Breaker. 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 Burris to the device/method of Breaker/Walch such that Breaker’s listing title and description are generated by machine learning AI natural language processing models trained on data pre-processed according to Walch’s techniques because Burris and Breaker are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/06 and/or G06Q50/16 “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.
Although Breaker/Walch/Burris teach the limitations upon which this claim depends, they may not teach the below recited nuance. However, regarding these features, Breaker/Walch/Burris in view of Pieloka teaches the following:
validating the object title and the object description based on a set of validation rules including: determining whether a length of at least one of the object title and the object description is within a predetermined threshold (Pieloka, see at least [pg. 32, 1-20] teaching, e.g.: “…As further configuration setting it can be checked whether the title length exceeds a maximum preset length (e.g. of 99 characters) [determining whether a length of at least one of the object title and the object description is within a predetermined threshold]…”)
in response to determination that the object title and the object description are valid, causing presentation of the object title and the object description for the data object on a graphical user interface of a client device (Breaker, see again at least Figs. 1 and 3d -3f; and [0019]; i.e. the property listing [data object] is listed online with “HomeFinder.com” as well as posted on social media sites; the system of Breaker includes social media tracking tools which tracks the exposure of the listing online; note also per [0014]: “FIGS. 3a-3f are examples of a user interface and web pages to automatically generate and promote a single property website…”; the generated website includes the listing’s name (domain name) [title] and description of the property listing [data object]; Examiner finds it is within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the business importance of checking the validity of model generated results, if a business wishes to operate with clear conscience and a an unsullied name, before providing such results to a client and therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform a check for validation per Pieloka techniques before displaying Breaker’s automatically generated result information, including presentation of a listing’s name (domain name) [title] and description of the property listing [data object] 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 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.)
in response to determination that the object title and the object description are not valid,
transmitting an indication that the object title and the object description are not valid to the natural language processing model (Pieloka, again see at least [pg. 32, 1-20] teaching, e.g.: “… Usually it is provided that a title is unambiguously issued over the whole database . This is also thus taken into account in the configuration according to the invention . If inconsistent inputs (for example for the title) are acquired, it can be provided in an advantageous development of the invention that a warning is automatically generated on a user interface in order to notify the user that an inconsistent input has taken place here…”) such that a subsequent object title and a subsequent object description are generated based on a validation result (Examiner interprets this phrase as an intended future result or action; i.e. this is a description of something which is intended to occur in the future but does not further limit the currently claimed method or system.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely applying known techniques of Pieloka (directed towards validating titles of documents and descriptions thereof based on user defined checking functions [rules] and automatically providing a warning [notification of not valid] if inconsistencies with user checking functions are detected) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Breaker/Burris (already directed towards generating real estate listing information, such as listing title and description, automatically via machine learning AI) 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 Pieloka to the device/method of Breaker/Burris in order to validate the AI generated listing title and the listing description based on a set of validation rules before presenting the listing title and description as part of the online listing because Pieloka is pertinent to the objective of Breaker/Burris 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 Breaker/Burris teaches the features upon which the below limitation depends, they may not explicitly teach the nuance as recited below. However, regarding this feature, Breaker/Burris in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art teaches the following:
…wherein the natural language processing model is trained on a supplemental set of object data, the supplemental set of object data comprising data objects that are selected above a threshold amount of time (Applicant Admitted Prior Art: It was old and well-known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that features of a real-estate property listing of a property which performed well in a market, e.g. selling faster than average, likely contribute to the performance of the property; e.g. the sale of the property faster than average).
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 train a natural language model on all listings, including the data stored as data objects of such listings, of properties that sold/booked, and therefore were selected, above a threshold amount of time – e.g. selected faster than the average property in a given market, to learn which features, represented as data objects, of a real-estate property listing were correlated to the performance (e.g. their selection as being sold/booked) of their respective property 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.
Claims 3, 11, 24: (previously presented)
Breaker/Walch/Burris/Pieloka/AAPA teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Breaker teaches the following: …wherein the object image data comprises satellite images associated with a location associated with the data object (Breaker, see at least Figs. 1 and [0018], teaching, e.g.: Feeds 106a1-106e1, such as MLS data, includes “photos of the property” [images associated with the listing], “maps of the property” and “An additional data system 106e may include a mapping website (e.g., Google®, Bing®, MapQuest®, etc.) [which provides satellite images associated with a location of the listing], etc… It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to realize that map data includes satellite images.)
Claims 4, 25: (Original/previously presented)
Breaker/Walch/Burris/Pieloka/AAPA teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Breaker teaches the following: …wherein the set of data is provided by a user via the graphical user interface of the client device (Breaker, Figs. 3b, 3c, 3e graphical user interfaces to provide data to the system).
Claim 16: (previously presented)
Breaker/Walch/Burris/Pieloka/AAPA teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Breaker/Walch in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art teaches the following:
…wherein the natural language processing model is trained on a supplemental set of object data, the supplemental set of object data comprising data objects that are selected above a threshold amount of time (Applicant Admitted Prior Art: It was old and well-known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that features of a real-estate property listing of a property which performed well in a market, e.g. selling faster than average, likely contribute to the performance of the property; e.g. the sale of the property faster than average).
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 train a natural language model on all listings, including the data stored as data objects of such listings, of properties that sold/booked, and therefore were selected, above a threshold amount of time – e.g. selected faster than the average property in a given market, to learn which features, represented as data objects, of a real-estate property listing were correlated to the performance (e.g. their selection as being sold/booked) of their respective property 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.
Claims 21, 22: (previously presented)
Breaker/Walch/Burris/Pieloka/AAPA teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends including a natural language processing model to generate object title and object description. They may not explicitly teach separate natural language processing models. However, the following feature would be obvious in because it is merely separating of already known modeling functions and separating is obvious; e.g. pertaining to the following: wherein the natural language processing model comprises a first natural language processing model and a second natural language processing model, and wherein the first natural language processing model generates the object title and the second natural language processing model generates the object description (It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art implementing the teachings of Breaker/Walch/Burris who already teach at least a natural language processing model, which may be multiple modules, e.g. per Burris [0016], to recognize that separating the function of generating a title and a description into two separate natural language models may be useful, e.g. for training purposes and/or efficiency reasons and because per MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C) – Making separable is obvious).
Claims 6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Breaker in view of Walch, Burris, Pieloka, AAPA, and further in view of Alahmady (U.S. 2021/0150569 A1; hereinafter, "Alahmady").
Claims 6, 14: (Currently amended)
Although Breaker/Burris/Walch/Pieloka/AAPA teach the limitations upon which this claim depends, they may not explicitly teach validation using machine learning. However, regarding the below recited feature, Breaker/Burris in view of Alahmady teach the following:
…wherein validating the object title and the object description further comprises: generating the validation result based on a machine learning model trained to analyze the object title and the object description wherein the validation result indicates conformity of the object title and the object description to at least one validation rule in the set of validation rules (Alahmady, see at least [0019], e.g.: “…prediction platform 115 may separate the historical data into a training set, a validation set, a test set, and/or the like. The training set may be utilized to train the machine learning model. The validation set may be utilized to validate results of the trained machine learning model. The test set may be utilized to test operation of the machine learning model….”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Alahmady (directed towards validating machine learning model generated results) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Breaker/Burris (already directed towards generating real estate listing information, such as listing title and description, automatically via machine learning AI) 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 Alahmady to the device/method of Breaker/Burris in order to generating a validation result based on a machine learning model trained to analyze the generated listing title and the generated listing description because Alahmady is pertinent to the objective of Breaker/Burris 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 7, 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Breaker in view of Walch, Burris, Pieloka, AAPA, and further in view of Wiesinger (U.S. 2009/0171680 A1; hereinafter, "Wiesinger").
Claims 7, 15: (previously presented)
Although Breaker/Burris/Walch/Pieloka/AAPA teach the limitations upon which this claim depends, they may not teach the nuance as recited below. However, regarding this feature, Breaker/Burris in view of Wiesinger teaches the following:
…wherein the listing title is a first object title and the object description is a first object description, the method further comprising: generating a second object title using the natural language model; generating a second object description using the natural language model; ranking the first object title and the second object title based on a title ranking system; ranking the first object description and the second object description based on a description ranking system; and causing presentation of the ranked first object title and the second object title and the ranked first object description and the second object description on the graphical user interface (Wiesinger, see at least Fig. 7 and [0073]-[0081], e.g.: “…It may be noted that the listing suggestion application 410 may also include other modules to suggest title information,…For some example embodiments, when the seller finishes providing the keywords in the keyword input area, the seller may press a soft key or button (e.g., "Suggest") to start getting the suggestions. The suggestions may include a title suggestion and a description suggestion. The title suggestion and the description suggestion may be presented in the respective input areas…. when there are multiple matching descriptions, the description suggestion module 415 may evaluate each matching description and may present only a subset of the matching descriptions to the user. An algorithm may be used to perform the evaluation to determine the subset. The algorithm may include ranking the matching descriptions based on the number of keywords included in each matching description”; note per Fig. 7 the possible descriptions may be ranked using a ranking algorithm. User is presented with ranked list of suggested titles, descriptions, etc…)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Wiesinger (directed towards providing suggestions of title and description of items to be listed for sale, and ranking such suggestions) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Breaker/Burris (directed towards automatically generating real estate listing information, including title and description) 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 Wiesinger to the device/method of Breaker/Burris because Wiesinger is applicable to Breaker/Burris automatic generation of title and description of listed properties for sale 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
On 01/23/2026, Claims 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 17-20 were canceled and Claims 1, 9, 23 were amended. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 01/23/2026, 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 rejections, USC 35 US 101 rejections, and 35 USC 103 rejections with Breaker in view of Walch, Burris, Pieloka and Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
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).
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
1 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the "October 2019 Update") (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_ oct_ 2019 _ update.pdf).