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 07/28/2025.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claim 1 has been examined and is pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements filed by applicant on 004/24/2025; and 03/11/2025.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is 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 claim 1 recites, “…using the mobile phone number and associated messaging
application that accepts SMS and MMS messaging…” However, this limitation lacks an antecedent basis. The term “the” is a definite article. As such, this term must refer to a definite previous recitation of the noun which it modifies. However, no previous recitation of “associated messaging application that accepts SMS and MMS messaging” has been provided. Therefore, this limitation lacks an antecedent basis for the claimed step. It is wholly unclear whether applicant is attempting to require a specific “messaging application” of the applicant’s own invention which must be pre-known or, associated in some specific manner or, whether applicant is merely interjecting the phrase in question as non-functional descriptive material (e.g. believing all such text must inherently be sent/received via any already well-known application capable of receiving SMS and MMS). At least because this limitation lacks an antecedent basis, the claim limitation is indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the phrase in question to be directed towards any generic previously known application capable of receiving and sending SMS and MMS as was well-known before the effective filing date 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Per Independent claim 1:
“…determine what properties have a geolocation near the geolocation of the user computing device that meet the criteria of the filters and establish a proximity zone around each of the properties;.
…find …geo-tagged property data corresponding to the properties near the geolocation of the user computing device
…deliver a portion of the geo-tagged property data of [a] property directly to a native messaging application on the user computing device as a text message… (in response to the continuing location information of the user computing device being within a proximity zone corresponding to [the] property).
in response to receiving a viewing request text message from the user computing device, …send a viewing prompt text message to request whether the user would like to view the property now or later; and in response to receiving a text message indicating immediate viewing, …send entry instructions including an entry code for immediate access to the property.
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, the steps as drafted are a business decision regarding targeting real-estate communications and marketing thereof, akin to targeted advertising, albeit in the field of real estate. There are no technical solutions recited to achieve the business communications being recited. For example, these steps are nothing more than retrieving marketing/sales data regarding properties, i.e. real estate of interest (e.g. search through a databased of MLS type data / multiple listing service data meeting a user’s criteria), which are proximate to a user’s location (a targeting criteria) and then deliver an undisclosed subset of such data to the user (e.g. generic user’s computing device) when the device is near a property (i.e. meeting such targeting criteria) and when the customer asks to view a property, then confirm with the customer when the customer would like to view the property and upon receiving the user’s response, then providing the customer with a service of providing instructions including an entry code useable for immediate access to the property.
There is no technical solution presented for implementing these ideas and no technical problem is being solved. Instead, the problem is purely a business decision to perform a data-supply service based on customer targeting criteria and with no technical solution supplied nor recited to implement the service. Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic server and computing devices 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 and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case real-estate information data retrieval and presentation based on customer targeting criteria including location) or serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (data-gathering and presentation). 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 (e.g. server, device, etc…) is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows: “A real estate information system based on geolocation, the system comprising: a server having a memory storing geo-tagged property data and filters set by the user for homes for sale; and a user computing device coupled to the server, wherein the user computing device is associated with a mobile phone number of a registered user and wherein the server is programmed to: receive continuing location information from the user computing device; automatically process the location information... automatically… retrieve geo-tagged property data…; using the mobile phone number, wherein the native messaging application accepts SMS and MMS messaging without requiring a specialized real estate application or user login; receive the reply text message through the native messaging application and deliver additional geo-tagged property data to the user computing device as a text message to the user computing device using the mobile phone number”
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” location information (e.g. GPS data) nor “processing” such information (e.g. using this as a partial key to look-up information in a relational database, etc…) nor a method of storing, retrieving, or of delivering information, such as an electronic message (e.g. e-mail, sms, text, etc…) with data retrieved from a database. Furthermore, applicant has not invented a technique for “using the mobile phone number” nor “native application(s)” which accepts “SMS and MMS messaging” to send “text messages”. 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 using generic computer components, and link them to a field of use (targeting real-estate communication and marketing) 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 generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. use of a server and device) and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. targeted advertising within the field of real-estate including data storage and retrieval of real estate information), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. sending information in the form of a “text message” to a generic application capable of receiving such messages). 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).
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 are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are therefore patent ineligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Double Patenting
Examiner recognizes the Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer, in view of Application 17/890,415, on 5/24/2024 which was approved on 5/26/2024 noting any patent granted for this application is subject to a terminal disclaimer.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Adiga et al. (U.S. 2007/0156758 A1; hereinafter, "Adiga") in view of Berthiaume, JR. et al. (U.S. 2019/0066201 A1; hereinafter, "Berthiaume"), Bestmann, et al. (U.S. 2013/0275560 A1; hereinafter, "Bestmann"), and Thomas et al. (U.S. 20120246024 A1; hereinafter, "Thomas").
Claim 1: (Currently Amended)
A real estate information system based on geolocation (Adiga, see at least Fig. 1 and [0002] e.g.: “This disclosure relates generally to the technical fields of geographic positioning, and in one example embodiment a system, a method, and/or an apparatus that provides information of proximate properties [real estate] through geographic positioning [based on geolocation]...”),
the system comprising:
a server having a memory storing geo-tagged property data and filters set by the user for homes for sale (Adiga, see at least Figs. 1-2, and 4, regarding server module 100 storing MLS data-base 224 and FIFO database 226, and note that client module 106 includes an interface including a search view 400 to “Search for a property: SQFT, LOCATION, PRICE” [filters set by the user for homes for sale], which per [0059]: “The search view 400 may input a set of characteristics [filters] selected by the user 102 into the client module 106 for processing by the server module 100…”;
PNG
media_image1.png
736
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, see Figs. 7 and 11, [0002], and [0008]-[0010], teaching, e.g.: “…Information of proximate properties through geographic positioning is disclosed… automatically identifying at least one other marketed property proximal to the geographical location of the user communicated via the client module [user computing device] to the server module [server] indicating the present location of the user in addition to a set of marketed properties [geo-tagged property data] based on a plurality of property databases…” and see also at least [0077]; Examiner notes: the geographical location of properties in the plurality of databases is known [geo-tagged] such that Adiga’s system/method automatically recognizes their proximity to user’s location and filters them based on user’s stipulated characteristics [filters], e.g. sqft, location, price, set via client module 106.
The Examiner understands Adiga’s server processes his characteristics [filters] which Adiga teaches are set by the user and therefore must store them in some capacity, even if temporarily, to enable Adiga’s disclosure of processing them. Therefore, even if not explicitly stated by Adiga, there is motivation to store these characteristics provided by Adiga and the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried storing Adiga’s user’s stipulated characteristics [filters] at Adiga’s server module 100 as a predictable solution by which to enable Adiga’s aforementioned disclosure because per MPEP 2143(I) (E) choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is “Obvious to try ” and/or 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.); and
a user computing device coupled to the server, wherein the user computing device is
associated with a mobile phone number of a registered user (Adiga, again, see at least Figs. 4 and 11, [0002], [0008]-[0010], e.g.: “…In one aspect, a method of a server module [server] includes determining a route of a user to arrive at a set of properties that are indicated of interest to the user through a network based on a geographical location of the user communicated by way of a client module [user computing device coupled to the server] indicating a ‘present location’ [continuing location information] of the user [i.e. server receives continuing location information from the user computing device]…”; also note per [0043], e.g.: “…The client module 106 [user computing device] may be a personal digital assistant, a phone [phones are associated with a mobile phone number], a computer, a cellular device, a satellite device, and/or any other GPS-enabled device that is associated and accessible by the user 102… The network 110 may be a…
a mobile network [i.e. mobile phone network; therefore communication with phone is via mobile phone number]…”) and wherein the server is programmed to:
receive continuing location information from the user computing device (Adiga, again, see citations notes supra, at least Figs. 4 and 11, [0002], [0008]-[0010], e.g.: “…In one aspect, a method of a server module [server] includes determining a route of a user to arrive at a set of properties that are indicated of interest to the user through a network based on a geographical location of the user communicated by way of a client module [user computing device coupled to the server] indicating a ‘present location’ [continuing location information] of the user [i.e. server receives continuing location information from the user computing device]…”; also note [0043], e.g.: “…The client module 106 may be a personal digital assistant, a phone, a computer, a cellular device, a satellite device, and/or any other GPS-enabled device that is associated and accessible by the user 102…”);
automatically process the location information and determine what properties have a
geolocation near the geolocation of the user computing device that meet the criteria of the filters and establish a proximity zone around each of the properties (Adiga, again, see citations noted supra including at least Figs. 4, 11, as well as [0002], [0008]-[0010], [0038], and [0048]-[0049], e.g. per [0038]: “…a method includes determining a route of a user (e.g., the user 102 of FIG. 1) to arrive at a set of properties that are indicated of interest [meet the criteria of the filters] to the user (e.g., the user 102 of FIGS. 1, 8) through a network (e.g., the network 110 of FIG. 1) based on a geographical location of the user [determined what properties have a
geolocation near the geolocation of the user computing device] communicated by way of a client module (e.g., the client module 106 of FIG. 1) indicating a present location of the user (e.g., the user 102 of FIGS. 1, 8),…”)
automatically find and retrieve geo-tagged property data corresponding to the properties
near the geolocation of the user computing device (Adiga, again see citations noted supra, including at least Fig. 7 displaying automatically retrieved property data corresponding to properties near the location of the user; see again also at least [0002], [0008]-[0010], and [0038] and [0048]-[0049], e.g. per [0008]-[0010]: “…automatically identifying [find] at least one other marketed property proximal [proximity zone] to the geographical location of the user …The method may automatically retrieve [retrieve] property information of the at least one other marketed property proximal to the geographical location indicating the present location of the user determined through the global positioning system and communicated by the client module to the server module…”
PNG
media_image2.png
804
1120
media_image2.png
Greyscale
);
in response to the continuing location information of the user computing device
PNG
media_image3.png
468
648
media_image3.png
Greyscale
being within a proximity zone corresponding to a property, automatically deliver a portion of the geo-tagged property data of the property directly to a native messaging application on the user computing device […] using the mobile phone number […] (Adiga, again see citations notes supra, including at least Figs. 7-8 and 11, [0014]-[0015], and [0067]; e.g. regarding Adiga’s system automatically delivering directly to his user’s computing device “client module 106” via interface 700 [native messaging application] property information which is within proximity to user’s location; e.g. “The house in front of you [in response to continuing location information of the user computing device being within a proximity zone corresponding to a property]: address, # rooms, year built, price, sqft, market type, etc… [automatically delivered portion of the property data]” is delivered electronically [as an electronic message which may be a text message as would be readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention] to the user’s client module 106 [user computing device] which Adiga teaches per [0043] may be a “phone” or “cellular device” communicating via a “mobile network” and therefore also inherently communicating via a phone number associated with the user’s client module 106 if a phone and/or cellular device; Adiga also teaches: “…The method may automatically retrieves [retrieve] property information of the at least one other marketed property proximal to the geographical location indicating the present location of the user determined through the global positioning system and communicated by the client module to the server module, etc…”) with a prompt to send a reply […] message for obtaining additional geo-tagged property data (Adiga, again, see citations noted supra, e.g. per [0067]: “…The retrieve indicator 704 [prompt to send a reply message for obtaining additional geo-tagged property data] may provide information of a home/marketed property nearby to the user…”); and
receive the reply […] message through the native messaging application and deliver additional geo-tagged property data to the user computing device as a […] message to the user computing device using the mobile phone number […] (Adiga, again, see citations noted supra, including Fig. 7, [0014]-[0015], and [0067], e.g.: “…The retrieve indicator 704 [prompt to send a reply message for obtaining additional geo-tagged property data] may provide [i.e. user receives the reply message if the indicator is clicked] information of a home/marketed property nearby to the user…”; the user receives the information via “interactive interface” [the native messaging application], which as noted per [0014]: “…interactive interface that enables the user of the client module to initiate the plurality of requests (e.g., the property information retrieval, the optimal route, a similar property search, an appointment schedule, etc.) to the server module via wireless communication.”; furthermore, Adiga’s user may also click the prompts to “see pictures” and “virtual tour” to receive additional property data regarding pictures of the property and/or to take a virtual tour of the property of interest)
Although Adiga teaches the above limitations, including electronically communicating with a user’s client device, via interactive interface [native messaging application], where the device is taught as being a phone or cellular device, and messaging received wirelessly e.g. via a mobile network implying the required use of a phone number associated with such device to enable such communication, Adiga may not explicitly teach his message which is delivered electronically over such mobile network is a “text message” using a “messaging application that accepts SMS and MMS messaging”. Nonetheless, even though text message technology and the use thereof was old and well-known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, regarding this feature, the Examiner nonetheless shows below that Adiga in view of Berthiaume teaches the following such recited features:
as a text message… wherein the native messaging application accepts SMS and MMS messaging without requiring a specialized real estate application or user login (Berthiaume, see at least [0035]-[0036], teaching, e.g.: “..In an example, the text messaging function is generally provided [without requiring a specialized real estate application or user login] on most or all mobile communication devices and may be used to transmit text and/or other information through a cellular network. Text messages that may be transmitted through the cellular network may include Short Message Service (SMS), Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) and the like. In contrast to text messaging, instant messaging applications are generally proprietary and may require a specific application to be procured to utilize its services. …the text messaging function may simply utilize a phone number associated with the cellular service… In an example, the default message may include a key or identifier corresponding to the target real estate property. Further, the default message may also specify a phone number to which the default message is to be transmitted…”)
In view of these teachings, the Examiner understands the limitation is merely a known technique of Berthiaume (i.e. directed towards sending text messaging regarding real estate property to user device using the device mobile phone number and associated messaging application) which is applicable to Adiga’s known system/method (already directed towards using a mobile network to send and receive electronic communications regarding real estate from a user’s client device which may be a phone or cellular device). 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 have applied this known technique to send Adiga’s electronic message to his phone or cellular device client module 106 when communicating over his mobile network 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 and/or 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)
Although Adiga/Berthiaume teaches the above limitations, including teaching receiving a viewing request text message from the user computing device (e.g. Adiga per at least [0016]: “…[0016] The interactive interface may further enable the user of client module to request a viewing of any of a pictorial representation and a video representation data of the plurality of properties for sale communicated to the client module by the server module…”), and as shown supra Adiga/Berthiaume teach sending messaging, regarding real estate, via text messaging to a user’s mobile device, they may not explicitly teach the nuance as recited below regarding various real estate business decions. However, regarding this feature, Adiga/Berthiaume in view of Bestmann and Thomas teach the following:
in response to receiving a viewing request text message from the user computing device, automatically send a viewing prompt text message to request whether the user would like to view the property now or later (Bestmann, see at least [0037], teaching: “…The notification can be of any appropriate form, and may include buttons such as "View Now" and "View Later", one of which can be selected by the user depending respectively on whether the user wants to view the new profile now or later. Other methods of notification may alternately be used, such as email or text messaging…”) and in response to receiving a text message indicating immediate viewing, automatically send entry instructions including an entry code for immediate access to the property. (Thomas, see at least [0004], e.g.: “…A technical advantage of one embodiment includes recommending homes for a buyer to consider purchasing based on the current location of the buyer and the buyer's preferences… allows the buyer to go to an area of interest and to determine nearby homes for sale… one embodiment includes providing the buyer with a self-service access code to allow the buyer to tour the home without requiring a real estate agent, a seller, or a tour guide to be present…” and per [0069]-[0070]: “…Once the buyer has been approved for a self-service tour, an access code or other means of accessing the home may be provided to the buyer. In some embodiments, the access code may be a randomly generated code that allows temporary access to the home. The access code may be communicated to the buyer, and the buyer may enter the access code into a keypad associated with the home (e.g., a keypad on the door or on a lockbox). Alternatively, the buyer's smartphone or another device associated with the buyer may provide the access code to a controller operable to unlock the door. For example, the device may communicate the access code using a wireless signal…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely applying known techniques of Bestmann and Thomas (directed towards sending text messaging prompts regarding whether a user would like to “view now” or “view later” as taught by Bestmann and furthermore per the teachings of Thomas, in response to a user’s request to view a property, sending the user an access code to access and view a home which the user is interested in purchasing) all of which is applicable to the known base device/method of Adiga/Berthiaume (already directed towards facilitating real-estate viewing and transactions) 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 Bestmann and Thomas to the device/method of Adiga/Berthiaume in order to perform the limitations in question because Bestmann and Thomas are pertinent to the problems being addressed by Adiga/Berthiaume 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. Furthermore, the Examiner notes, "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the combined teachings of these references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art that a user desiring to view a property may certainly communicate such intention and request via text message and in response in response to receiving a viewing request text message from the user computing device, automatically send a viewing prompt text message to request whether the user would like to view the property now or later, and in response to receiving a text message indicating immediate viewing, automatically send entry instructions including an entry code for immediate access to the property.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claim 1 on 07/28/2025. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 07/28/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 35 USC 101 and 103 rejections in view of Adiga in view of Berthiaume, Bestmann and Thomas. Also note the following:
Examiner recognizes the Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer, in view of Application 17/890,415, on 5/24/2024 which was approved on 5/26/2024 noting any patent granted for this application is subject to a terminal disclaimer.
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