Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/24/26 has been entered. Currently claims 1-26 are pending.
Priority
The filing date for the claimed invention of claims 1-26 is still considered to be no earlier than 06/14/22. The parent application that is ultimately relied upon in the instance CIP filing, 15267544, does not support the property value boost limitation and how it is arrived at. Also, the subject matter of claim 20 is not found in 15267544. Therefore, the pending claims do not get the benefit of the earlier date of 16276544, due to CIP subject matter being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claim 20, the claim has been amended to recite:
automatically capturing, by the system, the action; and
auto-populating a property log for the property with the action and an associated date for the action without requiring the user to separately create a log entry
There are two issues with the above language. The first issue is that according to the specification, the capturing of the action by the system is the system capturing the action in the property log. The specification discloses that the capturing of the claimed action is the act of capturing the action in the property log, see paragraphs 197 and 201. However, the claim recites a step/function of auto-populating the property log with the action and an associated data. The specification as originally filed does not disclose that there is a capturing step of capturing the action and then a different step of auto-populating the property log. The capturing that is claimed is the same as the population of the property log with the action that has been received from a user. For this reason the claim is introducing a step that is reciting new matter in the form of the capturing by the system of the action that is distinct from the population of the log with the action. The second issue is that the specification does not disclose anything about a user not having to separately create a log entry as is currently claimed. The claim recites that the action can be received by the system and is received from a user. The specification does not disclose that the user does not have to create a separate log entry as claimed. This limitation appears to be new matter and the reply from the applicant did not provide any indication of where support can be found in the originally filed specification for this aspect of the claimed 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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of determining a fitness index for a property and a property value boost, which is an indication of the incremental home value achieved by a homeowner for better maintaining their property. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea.
For claim 1 the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
creating or updating at least one fitness metric for the at least one property;
determining a property fitness index of the at least one property using the at least one fitness metric;
determining a property value for the property; and
determining an incremental factor for the property by processing behavior data indicative of the at least one behavior of a user within the at least one property and at least one of: engagement data indicative of the level of engagement of the user with the system; property data indicative of the at least one state of the property; and trait data indicative of the at least one trait of the property;
determining a property value boost for the property using the product of the property value for the property and an incremental factor for the property
For claim 12 the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
determining a property fitness index of the at least one property;
determining a property value for the property and a range of the property value using property value data,
wherein the property value data is obtained by one or more of:
accessing at least one public database or receiving input from a user; and
determining a property value boost for the property using the property value for the property and an incremental factor for the property,
wherein the incremental factor is based on at least one behavior of the user within the at least one property and at least one of: a level of engagement of the user with the system; at least one state of the property; and at least one trait of the property
For claim 20, the abstract idea is defined by:
detecting or receiving data indicative of an action performed with respect to the property by a user;
automatically capturing the action; and
auto-populating a property log for the property with the action and an associated date for the action without requiring the user to separately create a log entry
The above limitations of claims 1and 12 are reciting a system and method that is determining a property value for a subject property, and determining a property value boost based on activities of a user such as a user making upgrades or improvements to their home (the claimed behavior of the user in the property) and based on property information. Valuing real estate properties and determining increases in value due to certain actions occurring, such as home improvements, is a fundamental economic practice that is a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea. Claim 20 recites the act of receiving updated property information, capturing an action, and populating a property log, which is claiming a part of the valuation process for the property. Determining a property value that is based on stored information about the property (the fitness index) and that takes into account how much a property might increase in value if upgrades or renovations are made (the claimed behavior of the user is set forth as being activities that the user performs on the property such as maintenance and property upgrades, see paragraph 113 of the specification) is reciting a fundamental economic practice of assessing a perceived value of a property such as a home in view of property information and information about property improvements or upgrades that have been made. People have manually performed upgrades on properties with the expectation that they would provide a return on investment by allowing the property to sell at a higher price. This is done by installing a new bathroom or a new kitchen or getting a new roof to increase the sale price that one can obtain for a given property. The concept of valuing a property in view of property upgrades is a fundamental economic practice that is well established in the real estate industry. As is discussed in the specification in paragraphs 004-006 the prior art tracks property information to make recommendations by having a property inspections performed by a licensed home inspector. Discussed is how conventional approaches to determining the condition of a property exist and paragraph 007 discloses the issue of a home inspector being subjective in nature. The invention is determining a property score that represents the condition of property, just as home inspections are known to do as the background art for the claimed invention indicates. The assessment or determination of the condition of a property based on information about the property is a concept that is fundamental to valuing any kind of asset and is especially ubiquitous in the real estate industry. For this reason the claimed elements represents a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea.
Also, the claimed steps of claims 1 and 12 with respect to the fitness metric, determining a property fitness index, determining a property value, determining an incremental factor based on the claimed data, and determining a property boost value, are all functions that are capable of being performed mentally by a person. The claims is/are simply using data about the condition of a property to determine the value of a property and how much the value may increase or has increased due to an upgrade or renovation occurring. This can be done mentally by a person. A person can create or update a fitness metric and can determine a fitness index using the fitness metric. The claim recites this function as being performed in a broad manner such that a person can review data and make the claimed determinations mentally. The determining of the property value and the incremental factor are also broadly claimed such that a person can performed what is claimed mentally. A person can determine the value of a property in the broad and non-limiting manner that is claimed. A person can also determine the incremental factor based on behavior data, as the claim does not recite any specific way this is being performed such that it is clear a person cannot performed what is claimed. The claim recites broadly named/labeled data as being used to determine data of a fitness metric, fitness index, property value, incremental factor, and a property value boost, where the determinations are broadly recited to just recite the functional end result to be achieved. The broadly recited functions that define the abstract idea can be performed by a person mentally.
For claim 20, a person can receive data about an action that has been performed by reading it from paper. A person can capture the action by mentally taking note of the action, and a person can update a property log in their mind, and/or by using pen and paper where the log is stored on paper. The memories of people allow for logs of events to be captured and “logged”. The broadly recited functions can be performed by people mentally and/or by using pen and paper.
The additional elements for claims 1, 12, and 20 are:
a system that is defined as comprising a computing device having a processing unit, the processing unit operatively coupled to a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processing unit, causes the computing device to perform the steps of:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer and is akin to reciting “apply it” with a computer. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole) because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary. This is consistent with the PEG found in the MPEP 2106.
For claims 2, 13, displaying the property value boost is reciting more about the abstract idea. This is just providing the result of the analysis that is recited in claim 1. The claimed GUI is an additional element that is interpreted as being a general link to computer implementation for the abstract idea, and does not provide for integration or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For claim 3, the claimed accessing a database that includes sale prices, determining property value data from the database, and determining a property value are all elements that are part of the abstract idea. This is the act of looking up “comparables” to determine or predict a price of a given piece of property. This is part of the abstract idea. The computing device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1.
For claims 4-6, the recited determining of a high, low, and a midrange, and determining the property fitness index is in the range, and determining the property value boost are elements that are all part of the abstract idea. All of the claimed functions are part of the process of assessing the condition of the property and determining its value. The claimed elements can be also be performed mentally as was stated for claim 1. The computing device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1.
For claims 7, 17, accessing a profile, determining a recommendation to increase property value boost that is a safety, time sensitive, or recommendation to increase the value, are elements that serve to further define the abstract idea of the claims. Viewing profile data and making a determination for a recommendation as claimed can be done by a person mentally, and is part of the abstract idea when one is looking at increasing the value of property. The computing device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claims 1, 12.
For claims 8, 18, the display of the recommendation is considered to be part of the abstract idea. The GUI is an additional element and is interpreted as being a general link to computer implementation for the abstract idea, and does not provide for integration or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The computing device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1.
For claim 9, the claim is reciting more about the same abstract idea of claim 1. Comparing features and determining missing features along with a recommendation are all elements that are part of the abstract idea. This is just looking at data to make a mental determination and a mental recommendation that is done in the context of the certain method of organizing human activities. The computing device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1.
For claims 10, 19, the generation of the report is part of the abstract idea. People can generate reports using pen and paper. This is part of the abstract idea. The computing device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1.
For claim 11, the abstract idea has been further recited to include:
determine the incremental factor by processing all of:
the behavior data indicative of the at least one behavior of the user within the at least one property;
the engagement data indicative of the level of engagement of the user with the system;
the property data indicative of the at least one state of the property; and
the trait data indicative of the at least one trait of the property
Determining the incremental factor is an element that is part of the abstract idea as was set forth for claim 1. Further defining how the incremental factors is determined by claiming the data that is processed is still claiming the abstract idea. The computing device is an additional element and has been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1 to which the applicant is referred. The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea using a computer as a tool, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
For claim 14, the claimed accessing a database that includes sale prices, determining sale prices from the database, receiving user input, and determining a property value in the manner claimed, are all elements that are part of the abstract idea. This is the act of looking up “comparables” to determine or predict a price of a given piece of property and using input data from a user. This is part of the abstract idea. The computing device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 12.
For claim 15, the determining of the differences and determining a range is reciting elements that are part of the abstract idea. The computing device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 12.
For claim 16, the claimed correlating of a range for the property to one or more thresholds, is reciting an association is being made between data. This is part of the abstract idea and can be done mentally by a person. The computing device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 12.
For claims 21, 26, the claimed historical report and the listing by date of maintenance actions are elements that are part of the abstract idea. Creating reports and the content of the reports are elements that are part of the abstract idea. The recitation to the historical report being generated from the automatically captured actions is also considered to be part of the abstract idea. This is claiming data that is used to generate the report and is reciting ineligible subject matter in the form of data. The use of the data to generate the report is part of the abstract idea. The computing device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 12 to which the applicant is referred.
For claim 22, 23, the claimed receiving a status message indicative of the action that is performed with automatic capture of the action and determining user input into a profile are elements that are part of the abstract idea. People can send messages to each other using “an alternate method” such as by talking to each other or by paper messages. Information can be recorded as claimed into a log by a person logging the data manually. Recordkeeping such as the update of a log relating to a process of determining a value for a home is part of the abstract idea and is broadly recited such that people can perform what has been claimed.
For claim 24, the associating of categories to actions as claimed, is reciting more about the abstract idea. An association is a correlation and is an abstraction itself. This is something that a person can perform mentally. The computing device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 12.
For claim 25, the entering of text, reeving user notes as claimed, and storing the notes are elements that serve to define more about the abstract idea. The computing device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 12.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kalra et al. (20140316908).
For claims 20-26, Kalra teaches a system and method for compiling property history information into a database and that can viewed using a GUI by use of notes or reports (both of which are just information). Paragraph 019 teaches a property record as including property improvement records that are provided via the Web, and requires a processor and memory as claimed. Paragraph 038 teaches that information about home improvements is stored after being received from a user, and the information is incorporated into a log for the property that is populated with the action and a date. This satisfies the claimed receiving of data indicative of an action performed with respect to the property by a user. Home improvement information that is being received satisfies what is claimed as a home improvement is an action that is/was performed. Upon receipt of the action, the log is updated with the received information, which satisfies the claimed automatically capturing and auto-populating of the property log as claimed. The various home improvements that are documented satisfy the claimed action relating to a property. With respect to a user having to create a log entry, while this is new matter, it is noted that the prior art to Kalra does not teach that the user has to create a log entry. Upon receipt of the information by the system, the system is the one that is creating the log entry by editing the log to contain the new data regarding the action. The user can submit information as claimed via a status message (just a message), and by the claimed alternative method (claim 23).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 17-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley, III, et al. (20190251520) in view of Humphries et al. (11093982) and further in view of NPL reference “How to calculate home appreciation” (2020).
For claims 1, 2, 12, 13, Bentley teaches a system and method for determining a property fitness index for a property using a fitness metric. See paragraphs 007, 008, 056, 057 as examples. This satisfies the claimed creating or updating a property fitness index. Bentley also teaches that property value is determined, see paragraph 134 that discloses property value as being one of the pieces of information that can be displayed to the user.
Not disclosed is that a property value boost is determined using a product of the property value and an incremental factor, where the incremental factor is determined based on behavior of the user in the property (such as upgrades or renovations that were done) and information such as a state of the property. The claimed property value boost has been interpreted as being the determination of an amount that a property is expected to increase in value due to a home improvement or other maintenance action being performed. See paragraph 160 of the specification: “The property value boost provides an indication of the incremental home value achieved by a homeowner for better maintaining and improving their home.”.
Humphries teaches a system and method that is used to determine the effect that home improvements have on a predicted sale price of a home (a property value boost), and that is used to determine the effect that home improvements have already had on an already sold home. See the Overview in column 2, lines 25-62. Also see column 3, lines 19-39 where it is disclosed that home improvements are known to raise the resale value of a property. Disclosed is that if you take the value of the home without the improvements and compare it to the value of the home (as sold) that has the improvements, you can determine how much in price the improvement contributed to the overall price of the home. Also, see column 3, lines 66-column 4, line 12. Humphries teaches that information for a home to be valued is obtained, see column 7, lines 29-38. For the home to be valued, information about the home before any improvements are made is used to value the home. Humphries teaches data that represents the home improvements that have been made or that are contemplated as being made, see column 4, lines 21-58. Column 5, lines 9-18 teaches that one can determine the contribution that each home improvement has made to the overall price for the home (sold or predicated sale price). Also see column 5, lines 63-column 6, line 3, where Humphries teaches that one can predict the sales price of a home based on a valuation that takes into account the home improvements that have been done.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bentley with the further ability to determine a property value boost (determine how much increase in price an improvement contributes has on the overall price of the home) as taught by Humphries, so that the owner would be able to understand the effect that certain home improvements would have on the value of the property. This is something that is well known in the art and would have been obvious to provide to Bentley.
With respect to having the property value boost calculated as a product of the home value and an incremental factor (that is based on user behavior such as an upgrade to a home and a state of the property (condition data)), this is claiming the multiplication of the home value with another value to arrive at a new home value. The NPL article “How to calculate a home appreciation” teaches that it is known in the art to calculate an estimated future home value by using an equation that takes the home value at the current time and multiplies it by an appreciation factor (an appreciation rate) to arrive at a new value. The appreciation rate is indicative of the expected increase in value that for the home. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bentley as modified with Humphries with the further ability to multiply the home value by an incremental factor as claimed (an appreciation rate) to arrive at a future expected home value. This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because this is a well-known formula that is used to calculate a home value for a future time.
With respect to the recitation to an incremental factor (assumed to be the same incremental factor that is determined) being based on the behavior of the user and the state of the property, when one accounts for Humphries recognizing that home improvements can increase the value of a property, it would have been obvious to have the incremental factor being determined based on data that is representative of the property state and any renovations that the user has undertaken (user behavior) so that the new property value is representative of the actual property and it expected state when upgrades or renovations are performed.
For claims 3, 14, Humphries teaches the act of determining comparable properties that also have the same home improvement. See column 3, lines 46-65, column 7, lines 20-65. Properties that have had the same home improvement are identified and used as comparable properties. This is done so that the data set that is used is comparable to the home being valued in terms of being similar and having a similar or same home improvement having been performed. This has been provided to Bentley via claim 1 and is satisfied by the combination.
For claims 7, 8, 17, 18, see paragraph 065 of Bentley where the claimed types of recommendations are disclosed. The information for the property in the form of profile is used to develop recommendations that are displayed to a user. This is taught by Bentley.
For claims 10, 19, see paragraphs 058, 070, of Bentley, where the generation of reports is disclosed that summarize property information. This satisfies what is claimed.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 13 the applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea and argues that the examiner is treating the claims at too high of a level of generality that is untethered from the actual claim language. The applicant argues that examiners must evaluate specific claim limitations and the claims as a whole, not an overgeneralization of the claims. The examiner has considered the actual claim language of the claims and is not overgeneralizing the claimed invention. The specific language of the claims has been considered and all claim language has been addressed in the 101 rejection of record. The argument is not persuasive.
On page 13 the applicant argues that the examiner has not property performed an eligibility analysis because the examiner has failed to identify specific claim limitations and does not explain how the limitations are falling into one of the abstract idea groupings set forth in MPEP 2106.04. This is not persuasive. The rejection of record addresses the specific claim limitations with an explanation of why they are considered to be reciting an abstract idea at step 2A. The rejection of record addresses the specific limitations of the claims contrary to the allegation from the applicant. The argument is not persuasive because a review of the 101 rejection indicates that all claim elements are addressed and a prime facie case of claim ineligibility has been established.
On page 14 the applicant argues that while the claims do relate to valuation related subject matter, they do not recite a judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive. The claims are reciting an abstract idea at step 2A, for the reasons set forth in the rejection of record. To characterize the claims as relating to valuation related subject matter is ignoring the central focus and thrust of the claims as far as an inventive concept is concerned. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 14 that the claims are directed to a technological implementation. This is not persuasive. The extent of any technological implementation is the applicant using a computing device as a tool to execute the steps/functions that defines the abstract idea. That is not a technological implementation that somehow renders the claims as being non-abstract and patent eligible.
On page 14 the applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process. The applicant argues on page 15 that the claimed limitations cannot be practical performed in the mind. The applicant argues that the human mind is not equipped to receive and analyze upkeep data (unclear what this is referring to because the claims do not recite any upkeep data), is not equipped to store metrics, and is not equipped to process behavior data and system engagement inputs, is not equipped to calculate a property fitness index, determine a property value boost based on multiple categories of input. The examiner notes that the human mind is capable of receiving data which is the brain taking in information such as a person reading data from paper. The human mind can store data. The brain stores data and humans have memories that allow them to remember things. The human mind can most assuredly process data, especially when one accounts for the fact that the claims do not recite any specific processing that is occurring that is only capable of being done by a computer. For example, the property fitness index is claimed as being determined using the at least one fitness metric. A person can determine an index from a fitness metric in the scope claimed, which is not requiring anything specific. The determining of the property value is claimed as just being determined in a non-limiting manner. People can determine property values mentally. The same is noted for the incremental factor and the property value boost, both of which are broadly recited and can be performed mentally. The allegation that the human brain cannot intake information, cannot process information, and cannot determine property values commensurate with the scope of the claims is not persuasive. The broadly recited steps/functions do not recite anything other than the functional end result to be achieved such that the claimed functions can be performed in any manner. Nothing is claimed that precludes any of the functions that defines the abstract idea from being performed mentally. The fact that the claims recite the use of a processor does not mean that the claimed determinations cannot be performed mentally. The claims are not reciting functions that are somehow “outside of the human mind”. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 15 of the reply that “certain claimed inputs themselves underscore that the claims cannot be practically performed mentally. The system processes objective data relating to user behavior, engagement with the system, property traits, and property conditions, and transforms those data into a computed property fitness index and value boost. The measurement, weighting, and transformation of such data into system-generated valuations and reports is not a mental process. See also Ex parte Hannun, Appeal 2018-003323 (PTAB) (claims not directed to a mental process where the claimed operations could not practically be performed in the mind and did not recite a method of organizing human activity merely because they involved data analysis).” In reply the examiner notes that other than just generally alleging that the claimed functions cannot be performed mentally, the applicant offers no reasoning as to why. A person can use data regarding a user behavior, such as accounting for the fact that a homeowner has remodeled the kitchen to be updated and new. A person can use data such as property conditions and property traits with object data for a user engagement, etc., to arrive at a property fitness index and a property value boost. Again, the claims are broadly recited because the property fitness index and/or the property value, etc, are not claimed as being determined in any particular way that is computer centric and that only a computer can do. The general allegation that the abstract idea elements cannot be practiced mentally is not persuasive.
The examiner notes that “analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354; see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“‘Methods which can be performed entirely in the human mind are unpatentable’” (id., quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972))); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson). “[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
On page 16 the applicant argues that the examiner is dismissed meaningful technical limitations by addressing the claims at a high level of generality, and argues the processing of multiple input categories, the property fitness index, the value boost determination, and the dynamic generation of system outputs. This is not persuasive. The claims have not been overgeneralized as they have been considered for what they recite and nothing has been disregarded. As to the argued limitations, they are those that define the abstract idea. They are not technical limitations that are considered to be additional elements but are the functions/steps that serve to define the abstract idea. The argument that the examiner has stripped away claim limitations to overgeneralize the claimed invention is not persuasive.
On page 16 the applicant appears to argue that because the claims are reciting a “narrow and specific computerized application” that does not monopolize the abstract idea, they are eligible. This is not persuasive because even narrowly drafted abstract ideas are still abstract ideas. In buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court stated that "abstract ideas, no matter how groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, are outside what the statute means by "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter", and reference is made to Myriad by the court for this position. Also stated in buySAFE is "In defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303. The Court in Mayo rejected the contention that the very narrow scope of the natural law at issue was a reason to find patent eligibility, explaining the point with reference to both natural laws and one kind of abstract idea, namely, mathematical concepts.”.
Narrowness of a claimed judicial exception does not equate to being eligible. The argument about pre-emption and the claims being narrowly drafted is not persuasive.
On pages 16-19 the applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application.
The applicant argues on page 16 that the examiner has not treated the claimed elements individually and in combination with the claim as an ordered combination as a whole. This is not persuasive as the claimed elements have been considered for what they recite and have been considered with the claim as a whole. When the examiner states that the claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea using a computer as a tool to execute the abstract idea, that is considering the additional element(s) with the claim as a whole in the combination claimed. The allegation that the claims have not been treated as a whole is not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 17 that the claims are directed to a specific computerized property monitoring and valuation system, not the generalized concept of valuation. In reply the examiner notes that the rejection of record did not take the position that the claims are reciting nothing more than generalized valuation. The applicant is mischaracterizing the invention to fit their argument, which is not persuasive. The fact that the claims recite a system as being used is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea and does not define an eligible system as a whole.
The applicant argues on pages 17-18 that the claims reflect an improvement in the operation of a computer and an improvement to the field of computerized property monitoring and valuation systems. First, there is no “field” that is widely recognized as being the field of computerized property monitoring and valuation systems. The property monitoring and valuation aspect of the argument is arguing the abstract idea, where the fact that the claims recite a system that is comprised of a computing device is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea, which does not define an eligible system as a whole. The claims do not result in an improvement to the computing device of the claims. The computing device is just being used to execute the steps that defines the abstract idea, with no improvement to the operation of the computing device itself. The argued limitations of using data inputs to compute a property fitness index and using the index to determine a property value boost, etc., are elements that are part of the abstract idea and do not have anything at all to do with an improvement to technology. The result of the claim is a property valuation boost, which is not improving technology or computers or the computing device of the claim in any manner. Simply using a computer as a tool to execute an abstract idea is not something that is an automatic improvement to technology. In this case, the result of the claim is a property valuation boost, which is defined in the specification as “The property value boost provides an indication of the incremental home value achieved by a homeowner for better maintaining and improving their home.”, see paragraph 160 of the specification. Using a computer to calculate or determine a property value boost, which is an indication of the incremental home value achieved by homeowner for better maintaining and improving their home does not improve technology in any manner. The property value boost is a value that only has meaning to a human being and does not improve the functioning or the operation of the claimed computing device of the claims.
The applicant argues on page 18 that the claims recite an automated system driven processing that processes multiple inputs, applies predefined metrics and rules, and determines computed outputs, etc.. The applicant argues that these functions are performed by the computing system and not by a human. First, the fact that the claims are reciting an automated system is arguing that because the claims use a computer and automate the property boost valuation determination process as claimed, the claims are eligible. This is not persuasive for the same reasons already addressed. The applicant is simply using a computer as a tool to execute the abstract idea so that the abstract idea is automated. This is just using a computer to automate the process and does not lend eligibility to the claims.
In terms of using computers to perform a judicial exception, in Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), the court stated:
“Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient
inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be
performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)).” The court also stated that “As discussed above, our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
The examiner also notes that this issue was also addressed in Bancorp Services LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (Fed. Circuit 2012), where the court stated:
“Modern computer technology offers immense capabilities and a broad range of utilities, much of which embodies significant advances that reside firmly in the category of patent-eligible subject matter. At its most basic, how-ever, a “computer” is “an automatic electronic device for performing mathematical or logical operations.” 3 Oxford English Dictionary 640 (2d ed. 1989). As the Supreme Court has explained, “[a] digital computer . . . operates on data expressed in digits, solving a problem by doing arithmetic as a person would do it by head and hand.” Benson, 409 U.S. at 65. Indeed, prior to the information age, a “computer” was not a machine at all; rather, it was a job title: “a person employed to make calculations.” Oxford English Dictionary, supra. Those meanings conveniently illustrate the interchangeability of certain mental processes and basic digital computation, and help explain why the use of a computer in an otherwise patent-ineligible process for no more than its most basic function—making calculations or computations—fails to circumvent the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas and mental processes. As we have explained, “[s]imply adding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.” Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
To salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process, a computer must be integral to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a person making calculations or computations could not. See SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.”). Thus, as we held in Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, the limitation “using a computer” in an otherwise abstract concept did not “‘play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed,’” 671 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Dealertrack, 674 F.3d at 1333), and thus did not “impose meaningful limits on the claim’s scope,” id. (quoting CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375). The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 67 (invalidating as patent-ineligible claimed processes that “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary,” and “can also be performed without a computer”).
Automation of the claimed abstract idea by using a computing device is not rendering the claims eligible.
On page 18 the applicant argues that the claims recite the generation of graphical user interfaces that are dynamically updated based on system determined outputs, which is not merely displaying information but are a direct result of the computer processing information in real time or near real time. The examiner notes that independent claims not recite a GUI in the claim scope. There is no GUI recited in the independent claims that is being dynamically updated as the applicant argues. The argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims and is not persuasive for that reason. Also, the applicant is just generally alleging that claims are eligible without specifically pointing out what claims are being argued and where it is recited that the GUI is being updated dynamically as argued. The argument is not persuasive.
On pages 18-19 the applicant argues that the examiner has improperly disregarded technical features. This is the same argument that was presented on page 16 where the applicant argues that the examiner is dismissing claim limitations to overgeneralize the claims. This is not persuasive for the same reasons already addressed for the argument on page 16.
The applicant argues on page 19 that the claims are not merely linking the alleged abstract idea to a computer. The applicant then argues that this is because the claims recite a specific implementation that improves how a computer system operates and generates output. First, the argument itself is an indication that the claim do not more than to link the abstract idea to a computer. Second, the allegation that the computing device of the claims is being improved is not persuasive. The alleged improvement is the mere ability for the computing device to be able to perform computations to arrive at a property value boost (a number, a value). As has already been addressed, this does not result in an improvement to the computing device in any manner. The argument is not persuasive.
The reliance and citation to Vanda is noted, but is not persuasive. No nexus to Vanda has been shown for the pending claims other than to generally allege that because the claims apply inputs and process data, they are eligible. This allegation/argument is not persuasive.
On page 19, the applicant again argues that the claims are improving technology by improving computer functionality for the technical field of computerized property monitoring and valuation systems. As already addressed, there is no “field” that is widely recognized as being the field of computerized property monitoring and valuation systems. The property monitoring and valuation aspect of the argument is arguing the abstract idea, where the fact that the claims recite a system is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea, which does not define an eligible system as a whole. The claims do not result in an improvement to the computing device of the claims. The computing device is just being used to execute the steps that defines the abstract idea, with no improvement to the operation of the computing device itself. The argued limitations of using data inputs to compute a property fitness index and using the index to determine a property value boost, etc., are elements that are part of the abstract idea and do not have anything at all to do with an improvement to technology. The result of the claim is a property valuation boost, which is not improving technology or computers or the computing device of the claim in any manner. Simply using a computer as a tool to execute an abstract idea is not something that is an automatic improvement to technology. In this case, the result of the claim is a property valuation boost, which is defined in the specification as “The property value boost provides an indication of the incremental home value achieved by a homeowner for better maintaining and improving their home.”, see paragraph 160 of the specification. Using a computer to calculate or determine a property value boost, which is an indication of the incremental home value achieved by homeowner for better maintaining and improving their home does not improve technology in any manner. The property value boost is a value that only has meaning to a human being and does not improve the functioning or the operation of the claimed computing device of the claims.
On page 20 the applicant argues that the claims impose meaningful limits on the claim scope that do not monopolize the judicial exception. This is not persuasive. The claims recite steps/functions that define a judicial exception. The fact that the claims do not recite the entire field of valuation in general does not mean that the claims are eligible because even narrowly drafted abstract ideas are still abstract ideas, as has already been addressed by the examiner in reply to the same argument being made on page 16. On pages 20-23 of the reply the applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more and are eligible.
On page 20 the applicant argues that the examiner has not addressed the well understood, routine, and conventional nature of the claimed elements as is required. This is not persuasive as there is no requirement in the eligibility analysis that an examiner must address the well understood, routine, and conventional nature of the claimed limitations at step 2B as a rule. The examiner does not have to provide evidentiary support for a 2B analysis to show that the claimed limitations are well understood, routine, and conventional when the issue at hand is simply the computer implementation of an abstract idea. No such requirement exists in the eligibility guidance other than the situation where an additional element is found to be an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong (not the situation at hand with the pending claims). The examiner has not taken the position that anything is well understood, routine, or conventional at step 2B because nothing has been found to be an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong. Examiners do not have to prove that a claimed invention as defined by the abstract idea elements and the additional elements was well understood, routine, and conventional in a given field to find that the claims are not eligible. To do so would be injecting a prior art analysis into the eligibility inquiry. Something that is well understood, routine, and conventional is more than just known in the art, it means that something is more or less ubiquitous in a given field. There is no requirement that an examiner prove with evidence that a claimed invention is so well known in a given field that it rises to the level of being well understood, routine, and conventional. The rejection of record does not find anything to be an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong so there is nothing to reassess at step 2B with respect to the issue of being well understood, routine, and conventional (the Berkheimer memo). The argument bridging pages 21-23 is not persuasive. The additional elements of the claim is the use of a computing device to implement the abstract idea and this does not require evidentiary support at step 2B as argued.
With respect to the traversal of the 102 rejection in view of Kalra, it is not persuasive and is considered to be moot based on the new grounds of rejection that addresses the amended claims. The applicant argues that Kalra does not disclose the auto-population of a property log with an action. The applicant argues that this cannot be interpreted as the receipt of the action (data indicative of a home improvement or upgrade) from a user with the population of a log as is found in Kalra. The argument relies on what is found to be new matter as far as arguing that a user does not have to separately create a log entry. The claim recites that the action can be received by the system from a user. This includes data that is sent from a user that indicates an action, such as an upgrade or home improvement being made. Upon receipt, the system of Kalra stores the data in a property log. This satisfies what is claimed. The applicant argues:
“As amended, the claims require that the system detect or receive data indicative of an action performed with respect to the property and automatically populate a property log with the action and an associated date, thereby reflecting system-driven capture and logging of user behavior. This is fundamentally different from merely storing user-entered information.”
The receiving of data indicative of an action is disclosed by Kalra and is the receipt of information by the system. When the action information is received by the system, a property log is updated with the action information that has been received. What the applicant argues is totally different than Kalra is actually the same as is disclosed by Kalra, and is not a persuasive argument. The rejection is being maintained.
With respect to the traversal of the 35 USC 103 rejection, it is not persuasive. On pages 25-26 the applicant argues that the incremental factor is being determined in the claims based on the amendment. This has been treated in view of the prior art and is rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection that more specifically addresses the amendment claim language.
On page 26 the applicant argues:
Thus, the claims now recite a positive functional limitation that requires the system to both receive specific categories of data and process those data to determine the incremental factor. This data includes the Incremental Factor Inputs (defined below), wherein Claim 11 requires all four types of data. The claims further require: determining an incremental factor based on the processed data and computing a property value boost as a product of the property value and the incremental factor.
Claim 1 requires the Incremental Factor to be based upon user behavior AND one of engagement of the user with the system, property state, and property trait. Further, as amended, dependent Claim 11 requires the incremental factor to be based upon all of the Incremental Factor Inputs.
The examiner notes that for claim 1, the rejection of record addresses the obviousness of using data regarding user behavior (upgrades, home improvements) and property state data (property condition data) so arrive at an appreciation rate (the claimed incremental factor). The argument that determining an incremental factor (an appreciation rate for a property) based on data of user behavior (upgrades) and property state data is not persuasive as this is obvious because this is the very data that affects the value of a property, namely property condition (property state) and the presence of any upgrades or new additions, etc.. The argument is not persuasive.
For claim 11, the claimed use of all of the recited data is not found to be taught or suggested by the cited prior art of record. The argument is persuasive in this regard for claim 11.
On page 27 the applicant argues that the prior art does not teach using the level of user engagement with the system as data to determine the incremental factor. The examiner notes that this is not a required element of claim 1 because of the use of the language of “at least one of”. The level of engagement by a user with the system is not a required element of the claim, and the argument is not persuasive for that reason. The examiner has addressed the claimed user behavior and the state of the property as one of the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claimed subject matter (due to claiming at least one of for the level of user engagement, state of the property, and train data indicative of a property trait). The argument is not persuasive for claim 1.
On pages 27-28 the applicant argues that the present invention analyzes values based on user specific-behavioral data associated with a user over time, and argues that this is not found in the prior art. As to what is meant by claiming “user behavior”, the examiner notes that the specification discloses in paragraph 113:
User behaviors may include, but are not limited to, the number of property activities completed, the timing of the completed property activities, and the type of property activities completed. Activities are actions that the user takes in order to properly maintain and/or upgrade the property including, but not limited to, checking smoke detector batteries, checking carbon monoxide detector batteries, checking fire extinguishers, performing an electrical safety check, performing a plumbing safety check, having the heating system serviced, cleaning a dryer exhaust vent, and the like
Per the specification, the user behavior can be an upgrade to a property or any action that is being taken to maintain or service the property. This reads on a home improvement as is noted in the prior art combination of record. The argument that the prior art operates based on property level data instead of user behavior data is not persuasive when one accounts for the fact that the claimed user behavior can be a user making an upgrade or an improvement to their home. The argument that is trying to make a distinction between the claimed behavior data and that of the prior art is not persuasive.
On pages 28 through the top of page 30, the applicant argues that Humphries does not teach multiplicative computations. The examiner notes that Humphries was not relied upon for a teaching of multiplying the property value by an incremental factor as this was something taken from NPL reference “How to calculate home appreciation” (2020). The argument is not persuasive.
On page 30 the applicant argues that the examiner is improperly interpreting the claim to include the multiplication of two numbers. The examiner disagrees and notes that claim 1 recites “determining a property value boost for the property using the product of the property value for the property and an incremental factor for the property.” The product of two numbers is claiming the multiplication of two numbers. In paragraph 175 the specification teaches that the property value boost is determined by the equation of “Property value x Incremental factor (%)”. This argument that this is not multiplication of two numbers is not persuasive and does not agree with the specification itself.
On page 30-31 the applicant argues that the NPL reference to NewSilver is totally different than the claimed invention and argues that the teaching of a value increase in terms of a percentage based return is not for system derived computations. The applicant argues that an appreciation tied approach does not tied user data to computational processing, which is itself not a clear argument. The applicant argues that NewSilver does not trach or process behavior data, system engagement data, state data, or train data. This is not persuasive. The equation by which the property value boost is determined is disclosed in the specification as being a percentage based equation. NewSilver was relied upon to teach this very concept and has not relied upon to teach the use of user behavior data and/or state data as argued. The use of the behavior data comes from Humphries, not NewSilver. The applicant is arguing a single reference of a combination of references as not teaching what other references have been found to teach, which is not persuasive. The use of NewSilver is considered to be proper for what it has been relied upon for.
On pages 31-32 the applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine. The applicant argues that the examiner has not provided a reason as to why it is obvious to multiply a home value by an incremental value to obtain a property value boost. This is not persuasive. The reason that one does this is to determine the value of a home that has appreciated due to home improvements and upgrades. The reasoning is present in the rejection of record. The reason why one of urinary skill in the art would use an equation that takes a home value and multiply it by the claimed incremental factor is fairly obvious as far as this allows one to compute a new price of a home based on an increase that is represented by the incremental factor. If a property is considered to have increased by 10%, one can do this two ways. The first is to multiply the home value by a percentage to obtain a number of how much the home has gone up in value (200,000x10%). Or one can multiply the home value by an incremental factor of 1.1 will yield a resulting home value. The argument that there is no apparent reason to combine the references because the examiner has not provided any is not persuasive.
On pages 32-33 the applicant argues that Humphries teaches away from the claimed invention. The applicant argues that Humphries uses user specific behavioral inputs rather than user specific behavior in a property. This is not persuasive. The user specific behavior can be a home improvement that has been completed. Humphries does not in any way appear to teach away from the claimed invention by discouraging one from considering a home improvement as data that is used to determine a property value boost for a property.
The applicant also argues that Humphries embeds effects rather than isolating a factor, which is the isolating effects into a standalone, reusable incremental factor. This is not persuasive. The claims do not recite anything about isolating effects into a standalone, so it is not clear what is being argued here. Also, a number is a number and an incremental factor being reusable is not persuasive to argue. The applicant argues that the examiner is modifying Humphries core teachings. The examiner reminds the applicant that Bentley is the primary reference that is being modified. Humphries is not being modified in any manner because it is being relied upon as a secondary reference. Attacking a secondary reference like it was the primary reference is not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
The comments about claim differentiation are noted but are not persuasive. The claims have been examined in the merits for what they recite. The examiner has not treated all claims and all limitations as equivalents. The argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights