DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Application
This Communication is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendments, Arguments, and Remarks filed on the 22nd day of August, 2025. Currently Claims 1-21 are pending. No claims are allowed.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
Under MPEP 2106, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
In the instant case, claims 1-21 are directed to a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable media. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (step 1). However, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea (step 2). While claims 2, 9, and 16, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the test is to identify whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception. Examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), certain methods of organizing human activity specifically commercial interactions and behaviors and managing personal behavior and/or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that claims 1-21 recite a method, system, and apparatus for customizing a real asset, comprising: forming, via one or more computer processors coupled to at least one memory device, a group of digitized parameters representing the real asset; receiving, via a graphical user interface coupled to the one or more computer processors, specified proposed modifications to the real asset; storing, in the at least one memory device, binary digits corresponding to an as- is value of the real asset, binary digits corresponding to an estimate of resources allocated to modify the real asset in accordance with the specified proposed modifications, and an estimated value of the real asset that is to include the specified proposed modifications; computing, based, at least in part, on the estimate of the resources via the one or more computer processors, an amount of a financial resource premium for a proposed agreement between a current owner of the real asset and a first entity that permits [[a]] the first entity to procure the real asset at the as-is value or a specified percentage thereof within a specified period of time and that directs that the financial resource premium be provided by the first entity for the purpose of implementing the specified proposed modifications; and forming a record of materials and/or material specifications based, at least in part, on the specified proposed modifications to the real asset which is directed to concepts that are performed mentally and a product of human mental work. The limitations suggest a process similar to receiving information related to real estate planned improvements and valuations, processing the information and storing the information within the system, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Alternatively, Examiner notes that claims 12-21 recite a method, system, and apparatus for customizing a real asset, comprising: forming, via one or more computer processors coupled to at least one memory device, a group of digitized parameters representing the real asset; receiving, via a graphical user interface coupled to the one or more computer processors, specified proposed modifications to the real asset; storing, in the at least one memory device, binary digits corresponding to an as- is value of the real asset, binary digits corresponding to an estimate of resources allocated to modify the real asset in accordance with the specified proposed modifications, and an estimated value of the real asset that is to include the specified proposed modifications; computing, based, at least in part, on the estimate of the resources via the one or more computer processors, an amount of a financial resource premium for a proposed agreement between a current owner of the real asset and a first entity that permits [[a]] the first entity to procure the real asset at the as-is value or a specified percentage thereof within a specified period of time and that directs that the financial resource premium be provided by the first entity for the purpose of implementing the specified proposed modifications; and forming a record of materials and/or material specifications based, at least in part, on the specified proposed modifications to the real asset, and is similar to the abstract idea identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) in grouping “II” in that the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity such as real estate transactions. This is merely further embellishments of the abstract idea and does not further limit the claimed invention to render the claims patentable subject matter. The limitations, substantially comprising the body of the claim, recite standard processes found in standard practice in transfer of real estate property for commercial or residential flippers. The purchasers are able to get approval from their respective banks for the purchase of “as-is” properties and associating planned improvement financing to the overall funding agreement. This is common practice in every area of real estate wherein the property is purchased at a price that accounts for the condition of the property, account for potential plans in the granting of funding based on the planned improvements and construction wherein the funding is dispersed based on the completed aspects of the improvements. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps standard in interactions between people and businesses such as real estate transactions such as flipping houses, and the steps of the claims involve organizing human activity, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “organizing human activity” grouping set forth in the see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The conclusion that the claim recites an abstract idea within the groupings of the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) remains grounded in the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the description of the invention in the specification. For example, [App. Spec 5], “a graphical user interface coupled to the one or more computer processors, specified modifications to the real asset”. Accordingly, the Examiner submits claims 1-21, recite an abstract idea based on the language identified in claims 1, 12, and 17, and the abstract ideas previously identified based on that language that remains consistent with the groupings of Step 2A Prong 1 of the MPEP 2106.04(a)(1).
If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to a method instructing the reader to implement the identified method of organizing human activity of business and legal interactions such as contractual agreements (i.e., property purchases and funding) on generically claimed computer structure. For instance, the additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea itself include the elements such as “processor”, “memory”, “database”, “smart contract” recited at a high level of generality. These elements do not themselves amount to an improvement to the interface or computer, to a technology or another technical field. This is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure which states that the computing device is “processor 520 may fetch executable instructions from memory and proceed to execute the fetched instructions. Memory 522 may also comprise a memory controller for accessing device readable-medium 540 that may carry and/or make accessible digital content, which may include code, and/or instructions, for example, executable by processor 520 and/or some other device, such as a controller, as one example, capable of executing computer instructions, for example. Under direction of processor 520, a non-transitory memory, such as memory cells storing physical states (e.g., memory states), comprising, for example, a program of executable computer instructions, may be executed by processor 520 and able to generate signals to be communicated via a network, for example, as previously described. Generated signals may also be stored in memory, also previously suggested”. (App. Spec. 66).
Accordingly, the claimed “system” read in light of the specification employs any wide range of possible devices comprising a number of components that are “well-known” and included in an indiscriminate “processor”, “memory”, “database”, “smart contract” (e.g., processing device, modules). Thus, the claimed structure amounts to appending generic computer elements to abstract idea comprising the body of the claim. The computing elements are only involved at a general, high level, and do not have the particular role within any of the functions but to be an computer-implemented method using a generically claimed “processor” and “memory” and even basic, generic recitations that imply use of the computer such as storing information via servers would add little if anything to the abstract idea.
Similarly, reciting the abstract idea as software functions used to program a generic computer is not significant or meaningful: generic computers are programmed with software to perform various functions every day. A programmed generic computer is not a particular machine and by itself does not amount to an inventive concept because, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as discussed in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, it is not relevant that a human may perform a task differently from a computer. It is necessarily true that a human might apply an abstract idea in a different manner from a computer. What matters is the application, “stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’” will not render an abstract idea non-abstract. Tranxition v. Lenovo, Nos. 2015-1907, -1941, -1958 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2016), slip op. at 7-8.
Here, the instructions entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the role of the generic computing elements recited in claims 1-21, is the same as the role of the computer in the claims considered by the Supreme Court in Alice, and the claim as whole amounts merely to an instruction to apply the abstract idea on the generic computerised system. Therefore, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (2106.04(d)). Under the MPEP 2106.05, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claims 1-21, does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-21 are directed to further embellishments of the abstract idea in that they are directed to aspects of the domain registration process and ownership validation of domain names which is the central theme of the abstract idea identified above, as well as being directed to data processing and transmission which the courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities (see at least M.P.E.P. 2106.05(g)). Data transmission is one of the most basic and fundamental uses there are for a generic computing device is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. The examiner takes the position that simply appending the judicial exception with such a well understood step of data transmission is not going to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230011777 to Brown et al. (hereinafter Brown) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210012443 to Davison in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180053269 to Heatherly et al. (hereinafter Heatherly).
Referring to Claim 1, Brown teaches a method for customizing a real asset, Claim 12 recites a system, and Claim 17 reciting an article comprising: a non-transitory storage medium having computer-readable instructions encoded thereon, which, when executed by a processor coupled to a memory device (see at least Brown: ¶ 58-59, 84, 95, and 99), are operable to comprising:
one or more computer processors coupled to at least one memory device to form a group of digitized parameters to represent a real asset (see at least Brown: ¶ 60 “The database 400 can be a SQL database, NoSQL database, and/or any other suitable database. The database 400 can be queried to retrieve the measurements, condition scores, attributes, parcel data, auxiliary data, and/or any other suitable information used to perform the method. The query can include geographic coordinates, an address, and/or any other property identifier (e.g., used to identify a parcel and/or group of parcels)”; see also Brown: ¶ 29 “A measurement preferably records a parameter of a property (e.g., the property of interest), but can additionally or alternatively record a parameter the surrounding geographic region, adjacent properties, and/or other features. The parameter can be: the visual appearance (e.g., wherein the measurement depicts the property or surrounding geographic region), a geometry (e.g., depth), a chemical composition, audio, and/or any other parameter”; see also Brown: ¶ 30-31, 33-36, “Property attributes can include: structural attributes (e.g., for a primary structure, accessory structure, neighboring structure, etc.), location (e.g., parcel centroid, structure centroid, roof centroid, etc.), property type (e.g., single family, lease, vacant land, multifamily, duplex, etc.), property component parameters (e.g., area, enclosure, presence, structure type, count, material, construction type, area condition, spacing, etc.; for pools, porches, decks, patios, fencing, etc.), storage (e.g., presence of a garage, carport, etc.), permanent or semi-permanent improvements (e.g., solar panel presence, count, type, arrangement, and/or other solar panel parameters; HVAC presence, count, footprint, type, location, and/or other parameters; etc.), temporary improvement parameters (e.g., presence, area, location, etc. of trampolines, playsets, etc.), pavement parameters (e.g., paved area, percent illuminated, etc.), foundation elevation, terrain parameters (e.g., parcel slope, surrounding terrain information, etc.), and/or any other attribute that remains substantially static after built structure construction.”; see also Brown: ¶ 44, 50, 53, 72, and 122);
(claim 12) a graphical user interface, coupled to the one or more computer processors, to permit a user to specify one or more modifications to the real asset (see at least Brown: ¶ 28 “a property component or set or segment thereof, and/or otherwise defined. For example, the property can include both the underlying land and improvements (e.g., built structures, fixtures, etc.) affixed to the land, only include the underlying land, or only include a subset of the improvements (e.g., only the primary building). Property components can include: built structures (e.g., primary structure, accessory structure, deck, pool, etc.); subcomponents of the built structures (e.g., roof, siding, framing, flooring, living space, bedrooms, bathrooms, garages, foundation, HVAC systems, solar panels, slides, diving board, etc.); permanent improvements (e.g., pavement, statutes, fences, etc.); temporary improvements or objects”; see also Brown: ¶ 34-35 “Property attributes can include: structural attributes (e.g., for a primary structure, accessory structure, neighboring structure, etc.), location (e.g., parcel centroid, structure centroid, roof centroid, etc.), property type (e.g., single family, lease, vacant land, multifamily, duplex, etc.), property component parameters (e.g., area, enclosure, presence, structure type, count, material, construction type, area condition, spacing, etc.; for pools, porches, decks, patios, fencing, etc.), storage (e.g., presence of a garage, carport, etc.), permanent or semi-permanent improvements (e.g., solar panel presence, count, type, arrangement, and/or other solar panel parameters; HVAC presence, count, footprint, type, location, and/or other parameters; etc.), temporary improvement parameters”), wherein the at least one memory device is to store binary digits corresponding to (see at least Brown: ¶ 60 “The database 400 can be a SQL database, NoSQL database, and/or any other suitable database. The database 400 can be queried to retrieve the measurements, condition scores, attributes, parcel data, auxiliary data, and/or any other suitable information used to perform the method. The query can include geographic coordinates, an address, and/or any other property identifier (e.g., used to identify a parcel and/or group of parcels)”; see also Brown: ¶ 30 “The condition score can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, numerical, categorical, and/or otherwise structured. The condition score can be a label, or not be a label. The condition score can be a multi-class label (e.g., severe, poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.), a binary label (e.g., good or poor corresponding to 1 or 0), a value (e.g., 0-5, 0-10, 0-100, etc.; an integer value, a decimal value, etc.), and/or any other suitable score.”; see also Brown: ¶ 38 “Attribute values can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, and/or otherwise structured.”; see also Brown: ¶ 45, 51, 73, 77-79: binary use):
forming, via one or more computer processors coupled to at least one memory device, a group of digitized parameters representing the real asset (see at least Brown: ¶ 60 “The database 400 can be a SQL database, NoSQL database, and/or any other suitable database. The database 400 can be queried to retrieve the measurements, condition scores, attributes, parcel data, auxiliary data, and/or any other suitable information used to perform the method. The query can include geographic coordinates, an address, and/or any other property identifier (e.g., used to identify a parcel and/or group of parcels)”; see also Brown: ¶ 29 “A measurement preferably records a parameter of a property (e.g., the property of interest), but can additionally or alternatively record a parameter the surrounding geographic region, adjacent properties, and/or other features. The parameter can be: the visual appearance (e.g., wherein the measurement depicts the property or surrounding geographic region), a geometry (e.g., depth), a chemical composition, audio, and/or any other parameter”; see also Brown: ¶ 30-31, 33-36, “Property attributes can include: structural attributes (e.g., for a primary structure, accessory structure, neighboring structure, etc.), location (e.g., parcel centroid, structure centroid, roof centroid, etc.), property type (e.g., single family, lease, vacant land, multifamily, duplex, etc.), property component parameters (e.g., area, enclosure, presence, structure type, count, material, construction type, area condition, spacing, etc.; for pools, porches, decks, patios, fencing, etc.), storage (e.g., presence of a garage, carport, etc.), permanent or semi-permanent improvements (e.g., solar panel presence, count, type, arrangement, and/or other solar panel parameters; HVAC presence, count, footprint, type, location, and/or other parameters; etc.), temporary improvement parameters (e.g., presence, area, location, etc. of trampolines, playsets, etc.), pavement parameters (e.g., paved area, percent illuminated, etc.), foundation elevation, terrain parameters (e.g., parcel slope, surrounding terrain information, etc.), and/or any other attribute that remains substantially static after built structure construction.”; see also Brown: ¶ 44, 50, 53, 72, and 122; see also Brown: ¶ 30 “The condition score can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, numerical, categorical, and/or otherwise structured. The condition score can be a label, or not be a label. The condition score can be a multi-class label (e.g., severe, poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.), a binary label (e.g., good or poor corresponding to 1 or 0), a value (e.g., 0-5, 0-10, 0-100, etc.; an integer value, a decimal value, etc.), and/or any other suitable score.”; see also Brown: ¶ 38 “Attribute values can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, and/or otherwise structured.”; see also Brown: ¶ 45, 51, 73, 77-79: binary use);
receiving, via a graphical user interface coupled to the one or more computer processors, specified proposed modifications to the real asset (see at least Brown: ¶ 60 “The database 400 can be a SQL database, NoSQL database, and/or any other suitable database. The database 400 can be queried to retrieve the measurements, condition scores, attributes, parcel data, auxiliary data, and/or any other suitable information used to perform the method. The query can include geographic coordinates, an address, and/or any other property identifier (e.g., used to identify a parcel and/or group of parcels)”; see also Brown: ¶ 29 “A measurement preferably records a parameter of a property (e.g., the property of interest), but can additionally or alternatively record a parameter the surrounding geographic region, adjacent properties, and/or other features. The parameter can be: the visual appearance (e.g., wherein the measurement depicts the property or surrounding geographic region), a geometry (e.g., depth), a chemical composition, audio, and/or any other parameter”; see also Brown: ¶ 30-31, 33-36, “Property attributes can include: structural attributes (e.g., for a primary structure, accessory structure, neighboring structure, etc.), location (e.g., parcel centroid, structure centroid, roof centroid, etc.), property type (e.g., single family, lease, vacant land, multifamily, duplex, etc.), property component parameters (e.g., area, enclosure, presence, structure type, count, material, construction type, area condition, spacing, etc.; for pools, porches, decks, patios, fencing, etc.), storage (e.g., presence of a garage, carport, etc.), permanent or semi-permanent improvements (e.g., solar panel presence, count, type, arrangement, and/or other solar panel parameters; HVAC presence, count, footprint, type, location, and/or other parameters; etc.), temporary improvement parameters (e.g., presence, area, location, etc. of trampolines, playsets, etc.), pavement parameters (e.g., paved area, percent illuminated, etc.), foundation elevation, terrain parameters (e.g., parcel slope, surrounding terrain information, etc.), and/or any other attribute that remains substantially static after built structure construction.”; see also Brown: ¶ 44, 50, 53, 72, and 122; see also Brown: ¶ 30 “The condition score can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, numerical, categorical, and/or otherwise structured. The condition score can be a label, or not be a label. The condition score can be a multi-class label (e.g., severe, poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.), a binary label (e.g., good or poor corresponding to 1 or 0), a value (e.g., 0-5, 0-10, 0-100, etc.; an integer value, a decimal value, etc.), and/or any other suitable score.”; see also Brown: ¶ 38 “Attribute values can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, and/or otherwise structured.”; see also Brown: ¶ 45, 51, 73, 77-79: binary use);
Brown fails to state that the system receives a specified proposed modifications to a real asset.
However, Davison, which talks about a system and method for on-line management of real estate purchase, renovation and sale transactions via a blockchain, teaches it is known for the system to receive submitted offers and requests that have modifications (see at least Davison: ¶ 21 “lender accesses borrower financial position and payment history, property details and valuation, and project scope and ARV. At step 324, the lender records a loan offer, including draw schedule. At step 326, the borrower reviews the loan offer and accepts, declines, or requests modification.”; see also Davison: ¶ 21 “the borrower uploads financial documents required by lender (e.g., tax return, bank statements, existing loan docs). At step 312, the lender or third party(ies) verify and/or supplement borrower information and records results. At step 314, the borrower records property details and valuation. Optionally, as shown in step 316, the system calculates and records property valuation. At step 318, the borrower records project scope and draw schedule (either system default or proposed alternative)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of on-line management of real estate purchase, renovation and sale transactions wherein financing is procured in consideration of future planned improvements (as disclosed by Davison) to the known method and system for managing real estate transactions wherein the system provides an estimate related to a property valuation which incorporates the estimate for repair or modification of a real property asset and an estimated cost (as disclosed by Brown) to manage information used to underwrite a loan for acquisition of real property and planned improvements (see at least Davison: ¶ 20). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of on-line management of real estate purchase, renovation and sale transactions wherein financing is procured in consideration of future planned improvements because it would to reduce inspection fees and wait times ¶ 23; to track the flipping process end-to-end from initial purchase of the subject property through financing, renovation and sale to consumers ¶ 2; to allow renovators, lenders, vendors and inspectors to record aspects of the purchase, renovation and sale of the real estate in the blockchain (Abstract); and to manage information used to underwrite a loan for acquisition of real property and planned improvements (see at least Davison: ¶ 20)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of on-line management of real estate purchase, renovation and sale transactions wherein financing is procured in consideration of future planned improvements and project scopes (as disclosed by Davison) to the known method and system for managing real estate transactions wherein the system provides an estimate related to a property valuation which incorporates the estimate for repair or modification of a real property asset and an estimated cost (as disclosed by Brown) to manage information used to underwrite a loan for acquisition of real property and planned improvements (see at least Davison: ¶ 20), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of on-line management of real estate purchase, renovation and sale transactions wherein financing is procured in consideration of future planned improvements to the known method and system for managing real estate transactions wherein the system provides an estimate related to a property valuation which incorporates the estimate for repair or modification of a real property asset and an estimated cost to reduce inspection fees and wait times ¶ 23; track the flipping process end-to-end from initial purchase of the subject property through financing, renovation and sale to consumers ¶ 2; and allow renovators, lenders, vendors and inspectors to record aspects of the purchase, renovation and sale of the real estate in the blockchain (see at least Davison: Abstract)). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
The combination of Brown and Davison teaches:
storing, in the at least one memory device, binary digits corresponding to an as-is value of the real asset (see at least Brown: ¶ 92 “In a sixth variant, S300 can include using a condition scoring model that directly ingests the measurement depicting the property and outputs the condition score. The condition scoring model can optionally ingest a property description vector extracted from a property description (e.g., from a real estate listing service) using an NLP model, keywords identified in the property description (e.g., “turnkey”, “potential”, “as-is”), and/or other attributes extracted from the property description; example shown in FIG. 7 .”; see also Brown: ¶ 30 “The condition score can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, numerical, categorical, and/or otherwise structured. The condition score can be a label, or not be a label. The condition score can be a multi-class label (e.g., severe, poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.), a binary label (e.g., good or poor corresponding to 1 or 0), a value (e.g., 0-5, 0-10, 0-100, etc.; an integer value, a decimal value, etc.), and/or any other suitable score.”; see also Brown: ¶ 38 “Attribute values can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, and/or otherwise structured.”; see also Brown: ¶ 45, 51, 73, 77-79: binary use) binary digits (see also Brown: ¶ 30 “The condition score can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, numerical, categorical, and/or otherwise structured. The condition score can be a label, or not be a label. The condition score can be a multi-class label (e.g., severe, poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.), a binary label (e.g., good or poor corresponding to 1 or 0), a value (e.g., 0-5, 0-10, 0-100, etc.; an integer value, a decimal value, etc.), and/or any other suitable score.”; see also Brown: ¶ 38 “Attribute values can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, and/or otherwise structured.”; see also Brown: ¶ 45, 51, 73, 77-79: binary use) corresponding to an estimate of resources allocated to modify the real asset in accordance with the specified proposed modifications, and an estimated value of the real asset that is to include the specified proposed modifications (further addressed below);
Brown fails to explicitly state:
that the binary digits corresponding to an estimate of resources allocated to modify the real asset in accordance with the specified proposed modifications, and an estimated value of the real asset that is to include the specified proposed modifications
However, Davison, which talks about a method and system and method for on-line management of real estate purchase, renovation and sale transactions via a blockchain, teaches it is known to store and use corresponding information related to real estate properties such as an estimate of resources allocated to modify the real asset in accordance with the specified proposed modifications, and an estimated value of the real asset that is to include the specified proposed modifications (see at least Davison: ¶ 20 “The blockchain may be enabled to manage information used to underwrite a loan for acquisition of real property and planned improvement”; see at least Davison: ¶ 16 “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of exemplary stakeholders in a typical property flip process. The flipper 10 must obtain financing from a lender 20 for property purchase and/or rehab construction work on the subject property.”; see also Davison: ¶ 19 “The user, who may be the flipper, a lender or a third party consultant records the project scope in the system 210. The user, or the system determines as-repaired value (“ARV”) 212. This may be done automatically by the system based on publicly available market data”; see also Davison: ¶ 20-21 “The blockchain may be enabled to calculate the value of property prior to improvement and calculate an ARV based on factors including scope of work and comparable sales… the borrower records property details and valuation. Optionally, as shown in step 316, the system calculates and records property valuation. At step 318, the borrower records project scope and draw schedule (either system default or proposed alternative). Optionally, as shown at step 320, the system calculates and records after repair value (ARV). At step 322, the lender accesses borrower financial position and payment history, property details and valuation, and project scope and ARV.”).
Davison teaches it is known for the system to receive submitted offers and requests that have modifications (see at least Davison: ¶ 21 “lender accesses borrower financial position and payment history, property details and valuation, and project scope and ARV. At step 324, the lender records a loan offer, including draw schedule. At step 326, the borrower reviews the loan offer and accepts, declines, or requests modification.”; see also Davison: ¶ 21 “the borrower uploads financial documents required by lender (e.g., tax return, bank statements, existing loan docs). At step 312, the lender or third party(ies) verify and/or supplement borrower information and records results. At step 314, the borrower records property details and valuation. Optionally, as shown in step 316, the system calculates and records property valuation. At step 318, the borrower records project scope and draw schedule (either system default or proposed alternative)”).
Brown discloses a system which provides an estimate related to a property valuation which incorporates the estimate for repair or modification of a real property asset and an estimated cost (see at least Brown: ¶ 54 “The condition scoring module 200 can be specific to: a use case (e.g., real estate valuation, insurance loss estimation, maintenance/repair cost, etc.”; see also Brown: ¶ 47 “The attribute module 100 can be specific to: a use case (e.g., real estate valuation, insurance loss estimation, maintenance/repair cost, etc.), a measurement type (e.g., 2D measurement, 3D measurement, interior measurement, exterior measurement, etc.),”; see also Brown: ¶ 112 “the weights can be selected based on maintenance or repair cost per property component associated with the attribute.”; see also Brown: ¶ 125 “he condition score can be used with: personal and/or commercial lines insurance (e.g., rating, inspection optimization, etc.), real estate property investing (e.g., identify underpriced properties that can increase in value through renovation and/or repairs, incorporate condition score into a valuation model to establish the offer price, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of on-line management of real estate purchase, renovation and sale transactions wherein financing is procured in consideration of future planned improvements (as disclosed by Davison) to the known method and system for managing real estate transactions wherein the system provides an estimate related to a property valuation which incorporates the estimate for repair or modification of a real property asset and an estimated cost (as disclosed by Brown) to reduce inspection fees and wait times ¶ 23; track the flipping process end-to-end from initial purchase of the subject property through financing, renovation and sale to consumers ¶ 2; and allow renovators, lenders, vendors and inspectors to record aspects of the purchase, renovation and sale of the real estate in the blockchain (see at least Davison: Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of on-line management of real estate purchase, renovation and sale transactions wherein financing is procured in consideration of future planned improvements because it would to reduce inspection fees and wait times ¶ 23; track the flipping process end-to-end from initial purchase of the subject property through financing, renovation and sale to consumers ¶ 2; and allow renovators, lenders, vendors and inspectors to record aspects of the purchase, renovation and sale of the real estate in the blockchain (see at least Davison: Abstract).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of on-line management of real estate purchase, renovation and sale transactions wherein financing is procured in consideration of future planned improvements (as disclosed by Davison) to the known method and system for managing real estate transactions wherein the system provides an estimate related to a property valuation which incorporates the estimate for repair or modification of a real property asset and an estimated cost (as disclosed by Brown) to reduce inspection fees and wait times ¶ 23; track the flipping process end-to-end from initial purchase of the subject property through financing, renovation and sale to consumers ¶ 2; and allow renovators, lenders, vendors and inspectors to record aspects of the purchase, renovation and sale of the real estate in the blockchain (see at least Davison: Abstract), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of on-line management of real estate purchase, renovation and sale transactions wherein financing is procured in consideration of future planned improvements to the known method and system for managing real estate transactions wherein the system provides an estimate related to a property valuation which incorporates the estimate for repair or modification of a real property asset and an estimated cost to reduce inspection fees and wait times ¶ 23; track the flipping process end-to-end from initial purchase of the subject property through financing, renovation and sale to consumers ¶ 2; and allow renovators, lenders, vendors and inspectors to record aspects of the purchase, renovation and sale of the real estate in the blockchain (see at least Davison: Abstract)). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
The combination of Brown and Davison teaches:
computing, based, at least in part, on the estimate of the resources via the one or more computer processors, an amount of a financial resource premium for a proposed agreement that permits a first entity to procure the real asset at the as-is value or a specified percentage thereof within a specified period of time and that directs that the financial resource premium be provided by the first entity for the purpose of implementing the specified proposed modifications (see at least Brown: ¶ 92 “In a sixth variant, S300 can include using a condition scoring model that directly ingests the measurement depicting the property and outputs the condition score. The condition scoring model can optionally ingest a property description vector extracted from a property description (e.g., from a real estate listing service) using an NLP model, keywords identified in the property description (e.g., “turnkey”, “potential”, “as-is”), and/or other attributes extracted from the property description; example shown in FIG. 7 .”; see also Brown: ¶ 30 “The condition score can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, numerical, categorical, and/or otherwise structured. The condition score can be a label, or not be a label. The condition score can be a multi-class label (e.g., severe, poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.), a binary label (e.g., good or poor corresponding to 1 or 0), a value (e.g., 0-5, 0-10, 0-100, etc.; an integer value, a decimal value, etc.), and/or any other suitable score.”; see also Brown: ¶ 38 “Attribute values can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, and/or otherwise structured.”; see also Brown: ¶ 45, 51, 73, 77-79: binary use) binary digits (see also Brown: ¶ 30 “The condition score can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, numerical, categorical, and/or otherwise structured. The condition score can be a label, or not be a label. The condition score can be a multi-class label (e.g., severe, poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.), a binary label (e.g., good or poor corresponding to 1 or 0), a value (e.g., 0-5, 0-10, 0-100, etc.; an integer value, a decimal value, etc.), and/or any other suitable score.”; see also Brown: ¶ 38 “Attribute values can be discrete, continuous, binary, multiclass, and/or otherwise structured.”; see also Brown: ¶ 45, 51, 73, 77-79: binary use; see also Brown: ¶ 125 “The condition score can be used to determine: automated valuation model error, insurance loss ratio (e.g., insurance loss divided by premium), and/or any other value. The condition score can be used with: personal and/or commercial lines insurance (e.g., rating, inspection optimization, etc.), real estate property investing (e.g., identify underpriced properties that can increase in value through renovation and/or repairs, incorporate condition score into a valuation model to establish the offer price, etc.), real estate loan trading (e.g., use condition score to evaluate the quality of a loan pool and adjust bid price accordingly; use condition score to identify acute condition issues that can result in removal of a loan from the pool during due diligence; use condition score as an input into a model that predicts probability of default; etc.), real estate mortgage origination (e.g., GSEs can use the condition score to determine whether they will allow a property inspection waiver; originators of non-agency or agency loans can use the condition score as an input into their underwriting criteria; etc.), real estate valuations (e.g., use condition score as an input to an automated valuation model; use condition score as a supplement to a property-level valuation report; etc.), and/or otherwise used”; see also Brown: ¶ 126 “The property attributes and/or component values can be used to determine: automated valuation model error, automated valuation model accuracy, automated property valuation or price, and/or any other suitable value. The AVM can be: retrieved from a database, determined dynamically, and/or otherwise determined”; see also Brown: ¶ 130 “the attributes can describe property components (e.g., age of vegetation, age of roof of built structure, age of paved surface, price to replace roof, price to replace surface, etc.)”; see at least Brown: ¶ 54 “The condition scoring module 200 can be specific to: a use case (e.g., real estate valuation, insurance loss estimation, maintenance/repair cost, etc.”; see also Brown: ¶ 47 “The attribute module 100 can be specific to: a use case (e.g., real estate valuation, insurance loss estimation, maintenance/repair cost, etc.), a measurement type (e.g., 2D measurement, 3D measurement, interior measurement, exterior measurement, etc.),”; see also Brown: ¶ 112 “the weights can be selected based on maintenance or repair cost per property component associated with the attribute.”; see also Brown: ¶ 125 “he condition score can be used with: personal and/or commercial lines insurance (e.g., rating, inspection optimization, etc.), real estate property investing (e.g., identify underpriced properties that can increase in value through renovation and/or repairs, incorporate condition score into a valuation model to establish the offer price, etc.”).
Examiner notes that the combination of Brown and Davison fails to state between a current owner of the real asset and a first entity;
However, Heatherly, which talks about a method and system for connecting users of a real-estate transaction management platform, teaches that it is known to manage and provide systems to facilitate and manage real estate property transactions between current owners and buyers (see at least Heatherly: ¶ 26 “The real-estate agent/broker in the context of this disclosure may include anyone who furnishes the buyer with the opportunity to purchase/rent the real-estate property. Examples of the real-estate agent/broker may include a current owner of the real-estate property, a representative or agent of the real-estate property”).
Brown disclos