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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/27/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
This is a Non-Final Action in response to the amendments submitted on 03/27/2025.
Claims 1, and 9, have been amended.
Claims 2-5, 10-13, and 17-24 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the guarantee system" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the guarantee system" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 6-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 6-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1 and 9) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1, and 9 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps related to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Claims 1 and 9 recites the abstract idea of real estate management for collecting information about real estate properties (see paragraphs 001 and 002, ). This idea is described by the following claim steps:
periodically or continuously capturing an image recording visit or an invasion of a suspicious person to the real estate property;
permitting imaging with the internal imaging unit in response to an authentication operation by a tenant of the real estate property;
controlling a real estate management service;
executes a security record service for accumulating the image recording the visit or the invasion of the suspicious person to the real estate property on a recording medium;
a transaction history database in which all transaction histories of the real estate property are accumulated, and
when ownership of the real estate property is transferred, the guarantee system adds history data obtained by time sequentially connecting information about successive tenants having occupied the real estate property and the image recording the visit or the invasion of the suspicious person to the real estate property to a real-estate deed data which certifies tenantship of the real estate property and accumulates the real- estate deed data on the recording medium.
This idea falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; sales activities or behaviors; business relations) such that as required when managing real estate. The noted abstract idea is also directed to managing interactions between people such as that required during communications when collecting and transmitting real estate data conforms to the requirements of more than one party.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea groupings described in the 2019 PEG, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Claim 9 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
an internal imaging unit;
a tenant side device;
a service provider side device which is connected to the internal imaging unit through the communication network;
a real estate manager side device which is connected to the internal imaging unit through the communication network;
a service execution unit;
the guarantee system;
However, using a computer environment such as an internal imaging unit, a tenant side device, a service provider side device connected to the internal imaging unit through the communication network, a real estate manager side device connected to the internal imaging unit through the communication network, a service execution unit and the guarantee system amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Collecting information about real estate properties and managing real estate properties can reasonably be performed manually, perhaps with the aid of pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring recording images related to visits or invasions of a real estate properties. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of collecting information about real estate properties and managing real estate properties relates to a process that is executed in a computer environment through the recited computing elements merely limits the claims to a computer field, similar to how specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment in FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016) was insufficient. This concept is also similar to, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) wherein it was determined that requiring the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method, computer system, and computer program product that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified claims 1, and 9 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 6-8, 14-16 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claims 6, and 14 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation an accumulating unit which accumulates history data obtained by time sequentially connecting information about successive tenants having occupied the real estate property and execution results of the service execution unit; and an analysis unit which analyzes correlation between the history data and the execution results, wherein when ownership of the real estate property is transferred, the guarantee system acquires an analysis result from the analysis unit of the service provider side device and adds the acquired analysis result and the history data to the real-estate deed data. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of gathering and processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 7, and 15 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing the limitation wherein the real estate manager side device further comprising: a real estate transaction execution unit which performs a transaction of the real estate property on the basis of a guarantee obtained by a cooperation unit which guarantees legitimacy of a rea-estate deed data which accumulates all transactions histories of the real estate property. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 8, and 16 further limits the abstract idea by embellishing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation an address issuance unit which issues a public address generated from a public key in accordance with a public key cryptographic system for identifying a certain user, and a private key paired with the public key and capable of identifying the public key for use in an electronic signature of a real estate transaction through the public address; and a real estate transaction execution unit which acquires the real-estate deed data to transfer the ownership of the real estate property by adding a public address relating to a new tenant and changing the tenant certified by the real-estate deed data. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of gathering and processing information in a generic computing environment performing does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2025 have been fully considered.
In response to the amendments and arguments submitted on 03/27/2025, the previously presented 35 USC 112, have been withdrawn.
Regarding the previously presented 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims 1 and 9 discloses configurations that cannot be achieved in a human mind and are not a mental process. Examiner notes that after re-evaluating the purpose of the invention, it has been determined that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of managing real estate. Specifically, collecting information about real estate properties as disclosed on the originally filled specification. Such processes not only are directed to observation and evaluation of data, which can be performed mentally but mostly are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity since are rooted in commercial interactions, sales activities or behaviors and business relations as needed to managing real estate properties. The additional elements recited in the claims are considered recited in a generic manner, used to link the abstract idea to a specific environment, that cannot be considered to be significantly more that the abstract idea identified. This is because the elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of collecting real estate data. Additionally, Applicant failed to articulate a reasoning as how these additional elements are significantly more. It is noted that although the steps are being performed by computer elements, the recited computer elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer performing generic computer functions. The computer elements are used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving data, creating a record and transferring data. Therefore, the computer is used to perform the abstract idea, as discussed above in step 2A, of the analysis, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kam, US Patent Publication 2013/0080343, Real Estate Freed From Immobilization, An object of the present invention is to establish a patent protected monopoly of operating a business that functions to release ownership of financially distressed real estate from ownership of record to lien holders who have filed court foreclosure proceeding and have abandoned subsequently completion of foreclosure leaving borrower of status as owner of record responsible for property maintenance but without any equity usage in the property.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629