DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the Amendments filed by the applicant on July 14. 2025.
Claims 1-23 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 7/14/2025 is respectfully acknowledged and entered into the record.
The amendments to the claims are summarized:
Claims 1-2, 3-10, and 13-22 are amended and remain pending in the application.
Claims 3 and 11-12 are original claims.
Claim 23 has been added with No New Matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments, see Remarks pages 19-20, the Examiner respectfully acknowledges the Interview disclosure.
Applicant’s Argument’s, see Remarks pages 20, with respect Objections to Drawings, the Examiner respectfully acknowledges the amendments to the drawings and to the specification in order to meet the formalities requirements, with an amendment to the drawings and the specification to overcome the objection, which have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner respectfully agrees that the amendments remove the necessity for the Objections to the Drawings, and therefore, the Objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 21, with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for claims 13 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amended claims 13 and 20 no longer recite a “well-trained” algorithm, such that the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is moot and the previous rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 21-28, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 22, Applicant argues that the claims recite an improvement to existing technology or technological field, specifically, real estate and finding/identifying property leads, by property agents, but does not disclose an argument to support this claim. Applicant argues that the claims are directed to an improvement in “computer-related” technology because the instant application is a system to better assist agents identify leads more efficiently, and are not directed to an abstract idea, but does not disclose an argument to support this argument. Further, Applicant argues that the present claims are integrated into a practical application, but does not present an argument to support this argument. The instant application discloses in the specification ¶ [0010] and numerous alternate locations including ¶ [0066], that feedback about the quality of the output list of property leads is collected from third party real-estate agents or agencies, and that feedback on quality of the output list is used iteratively to improve the property lead finder system over itself. This particular improvement is broadly disclosed and recited, relying on the details of the data that is being manipulated, while disclosing only generally improving on the system over itself based on agents’ opinion-based feedback regarding the output list, such that the improvement does not disclose an improvement to the overall technology or field of use. An algorithm or machine learning model utilizes statistical analysis, once performed by hand, where adding automation of statistical data analysis by performing the calculations on general-purpose computing structures, inherently improves speed and quality. Improvements to a particular application in a field of use, of a widely used algorithm, generally disclosed model, or a basic computer with processor, memory, RAM, and instructions that are invoked from a non-transitory computer readable medium, are not an improvement to the functioning of a computer. Improving on things that are innate to a computer, like speed and efficiency, are disclosed in MPEP 2016.05(f), where a machine learning model or algorithm performed on a general-purpose computing structures, are disclosed as tools, used to perform an existing process, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" (or with machine learning or an algorithm) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.”
For these same reasons, Applicant’s arguments, that the invention is indicative of significantly more than the abstract idea, and therefore furnishes an inventive concept, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the steps are unconventional and are other than what is well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. This argument is only relevant and probative for elements of the claim identified in the rejection as extra solution activity. The rejection did not identify any claim elements as extra solution activity therefore, this argument is moot.
Applicant further argues that the invention improves conventional processes and generate new analysis and data for those processes, without disclosing or reciting further, how the application improves over any conventional processes at all or improves on the analysis technology. The instant application only recites and discloses utilizing data that already exists for each of the properties and users, or collecting actively occurring clickstream data, i.e. user interactions/impressions comprised within click-based or interaction-based data from an analytics platform and/or websites that comprises real-estate data. The data is broadly and generally collected using processes or methods that are not exemplified as alternate to or improving on modern computer based, machine learning or algorithm processes or methods of doing the same. The data is utilized in a machine learning model that performs classification using a non-proprietary algorithm, with processes that reorganize the data utilizing these models and algorithms based on existing statistics and computer science techniques, where even the parameters match the non-proprietary XGBoost parameter by name. The analytics platform disclosed by the specification, may be a commercially available system, like Google Analytics. The historical property table, software analytics platform, and transaction history table, are recited and disclosed as data structures. The scale_pos_weight parameter and the data comprised within or returned from the data structures, are mere characterizations of data, where data that is characterized is descriptive information that does not carry patentable weight and therefore does not integrate an application into a practical application, or amount to enough to transform each claim, as a whole, into something that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea, where abstract ideas are, categorically, functions that perform actions similar in nature to those in MPEP 2106.04(a)(II), that cannot be monopolized by any patent.
Rounding out Applicant’s remarks, on pages 24 - 27, regarding the updated 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection found below, preventing assignment of an output property from inclusion on a list, is an abstract idea, and would therefore need to be integrated into a practical application and/or, would need to amount to significantly more than itself, when analyzing the additional elements in the claim viewed as a whole. The Personally Identifiable Information for properties is public knowledge, such that a list without PII is nothing more than a list without a particular data characterization that is accessible publicly, and is therefore, not a patentable distinction. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments of an improvement to data privacy and protection technology is an afterthought, mentioned once in the specification, in ¶ [0107], and is not the focus of the invention. Moreover, minimizing conflict of interest, minimizing datasets by filtering, minimizing computational resources, and utilizing a common xGBoost parameter for balancing, a standard process for the xGBoost algorithm, are not additional elements that are analyzed in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis. Aside from minimizing conflict of interest, security through protecting PII and weighting the algorithm, which are manipulating data in the form of implementing filtering processes to the data, filtering data is an abstract idea at least in the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" categories disclosed in, and for the same reasons detailed in the updated rejection. Minimizing datasets through filtering, using weighting to avoid over or under sampling, or any other process that is used to minimize computational resources and overhead, or to reduce computational load or memory usage, are innate properties that are afforded by the use of general-purpose computing structures used for automating tasks, that were once performed by hand (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The amendments comprise limitations that do not add additional elements that are indicative of integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, or amount to significantly more.
With regards to pages 27 and 28, as disclosed in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection below, the two tables are disclosed by Applicant as data structures. These data sources, and were never analyzed as abstract ideas. These additional elements are not indicative of a practical application. These data structures to not transform the abstract ideas into significantly more than the abstract idea. The same applies to the software analytics platform, which is an additional element, where additional elements are not abstract ideas. This additional element is disclosed in the specification is also broadly and generally disclosed while focusing on the characterized data that is utilized and returned by the analytics platform, that may be Google Analytics. This additional element is not indicative of a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Lastly, an algorithm, performing exactly what an algorithm does, while being broadly and generally disclosed and focusing on the data characterizations, the balancing of the positive and negative weights of the xGBoost algorithm using standard xGBoost methods, is not a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
For these reasons, after careful consideration of Applicant’s arguments, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is respectfully maintained. The Examiner has included an updated 101 rejection below to reflect Applicant’s amendments and further discussion.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 29-31, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) for claims 1-8 and 16-19, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection should be withdrawn because Malaviya fails to disclose “each and every element of the claimed invention. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
More specifically, Applicant avers that the prior art does not incorporate: a transaction history table with all rent and sales activity over time, a real-estate website that comprises historical property data in a table format, or data derived in a software analytics platform that originated from a real-estate website, the data comprising user interactions connected to property data from the real-estate data source. The prior art of Malaviya clearly discloses rental and sales history activities, presented as at least a list with columns and lines comprised of data, meeting the definition of a “table” comprised of data, where the instant application does not disclose an alternate meaning.
Applicant additionally argues that Malaviya fails to show a real-estate website with user interactions that feeds property information to the system, averring that the prior art fails to disclose a real-estate website that serves as a data source and that Malaviya fails to mention a website at all. Applicant avers that the website in Malaviya is only used after the model is created to analyze performance. Firstly, the argument of Applicant is contradictory, where the Applicant states that there is a website disclosed in Malaviya, therefore this argument is Moot. Secondly, the argument of Applicant is contradictory, that the website is not a real-estate website and the website fails to serve as a data source since the website is only used after the prediction model is created. The instant application does not specify in the claims nor disclose in the specification, that data may only be collected before the prediction model is created. Monitoring of impressions within a website discloses receiving data from a website. The prior art discloses that the potential real estate customer, retrieved from the real-estate prediction list, may access the website, corresponding to the client/agent or system, through a hyperlink sent by the system or the client/agent. This implicitly discloses that the system of Malaviya is a real-estate website comprising real-estate data, more specifically, the website of the system and/or of the client/real-estate agent. The customer accesses the website, comprised of the real-estate-based data sent from the system or the client/agent and while the customer is on the website, data is collected comprising the customer’s interaction with the website. The Applicant avers that the citation of Malaviya “states that a “website 362” may be monitored for client interactions,” therefore, Applicant affirms that Malaviya discloses a website in the citation, and the website does supply data that is [0054] “based upon a population of Real-Estate data.”
Applicant argues that the website is only utilized to update the prediction model after the model is created and therefore, the website does not serve as a data source, however, at least [Figure 5] of Malaviya discloses real estate data, and [Figure 4] discloses data collected prior to the model, a model specifically disclosed for predicting real-estate factors including those recited in the instant application, regardless of when the website is used. In ¶ [0055], the prior art discloses “FIG. 5 may preferably provide targeted marketing and/or sales for real estate, wherein a population of data 82 is input or otherwise received in regard to a plurality of properties 132 (FIG. 7),”and [0056] discloses that the data is attribute data pertaining to properties, i.e. real-estate data that is [0055] “otherwise received in regard to a plurality of properties.” Malaviya, in ¶’s [0058] and [0066] discloses that user interactions and data are additionally comprised in the data that is received, where the system may track events, leads, ads, or impressions. [0065] discloses “aggregated data 88 may preferably be considered when developing a predictive model 95,” therefore, data is collected and aggregated prior to model creation. The system of Malaviya functions by utilizing an interface or client terminal that may be accessed on a Web appliance, more specifically, a user interface, over the internet, i.e. any machine capable of executing instructions specifying actions to be taken by the machine disclosed in [0046], [0047], and [0048], and ¶ [0058] specifically discloses “Internet browsing patterns,” where browsing the internet implicitly incorporates websites. The citations have been updated in the rejection to clarify the distinctions.
Further, Applicant argues that Malaviya fails to describe any “user interactions within a real-estate website that is derived from a software analytics platform.” The Examiner redirects Applicant to ¶’s [0068] and [0133] disclosing real-estate and enhanced analytics. Applicant argues that “clickstream data” is not presented at all and therefore NO user interaction data is cited, however, the prior art discloses ¶ [0058] data accessed by the system includes “internet browsing patterns,” [0133] other enhanced analytic information, [0066] “the system may track events, leads, ads, or impressions,” [0068] real-estate analytics, and [0107] customer “impressions” may be logged or tracked. These impressions, tracking, logging, browsing patterns, and analytics are clickstream data, under the broadest reasonable interpretation where the specification does not disclose an alternate definition. The disclosed citations have been updated to further attend to any unclear representations where Malaviya discloses ALL of the claim limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
For these reasons, after careful consideration of Applicant’s arguments, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection is respectfully maintained. The Examiner has included an updated 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection below to reflect Applicant’s amendments and further discussion.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 29-31, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) for claims 9-15 and 20-22, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the amendments with respect to the prior art.
The Examiner has included the new 35 U.S.C. § 103 grounds of rejection for claims 9-15 and 20-22 below, to reflect Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“transceiving module” in claims 1, 5, 9, and 16;
“prediction module” in claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13. 14. 16, 20 and 21;
“data sharing module” in claims 4, 8, 15, and 22;
“feedback module” in claims 4, 8, 15, and 22;
“data processing module” in claims 9, 11, 12, 16, and 19.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 fall under the statutory category the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims
Regarding Claim 1: The claim recites a determine score function in the abstract idea category of “mathematical concepts”, more specifically, “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculations” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The claims recite the determine score function, the determine propensity data function, determine lead property function, create output function, map data function, data matching functions, determine propensity to sell, which are abstract ideas in the categories of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “fundamental economic practices or principles” for predicting future home sales relating to commerce and mitigating risk using user data and property rent and sales history data, “commercial or legal interactions” for creating future marketing leads, driving marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” by utilizing clickstream data including user interactions and sales and rent history to make predictions (MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)(II)(A), (B) and (C)). The limitations above the are also in the abstract idea category of “mental processes” or things that can be performed in the human mind, but for a computer, models, and algorithms (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)-(D)). The claim recites an abstract idea.
These functions are executed by the prediction module. Additional claim limitations recited are the receiving functions executed by the transceiving module, which is not an abstract idea. The modules are interpreted as computer programs executing instructions on general purpose computers as interpreted under 112(f) [0053]. The modules are therefore executing instructions, ie the abstract ideas on general purpose structures. Instructions to apply abstract ideas in a technical environment with general purpose computing structures is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The transceiving module is not performing an abstract idea, it is receiving information and is unrelated in the functions of the prediction module. The specification does not disclose that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data receiving technology as these functions are described at a high level of generality. Instead, the specification is focused on the nature of the data being transmitted – i.e. the descriptive nature of the data ..
The claims have additional limitation, the data source structures which are general purpose databases ie. the data source and third-party database. These structures are not abstract ideas and are additional elements that do not amount to practical application. Lastly, the claims recite limitations that describe the nature of the information, clickstream data, property data, wealth properties history, transaction history table, rent and sales activity over time ,user interaction data, propensity to sell value, lead properties, property address, score, output list, property information and flag. These descriptive information limitations are neither an abstract idea, nor limitations that carry patentable weight in the claim. These limitations cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are non-functional descriptive materials – they do not positively recite any additional functions that limit the claims or the structures of the claims. There are no additional limitations that integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The analysis above for Step 2A, is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 5: The claim recites a determine score function in the abstract idea category of “mathematical concepts”, more specifically, “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculations” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The claims recite determine score function, the determine propensity data function, determine lead property function, create output function, map data function, and data matching functions, determine propensity to sell, which are abstract ideas in the categories of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “fundamental economic practices or principles” for predicting future home sales relating to commerce and mitigating risk, “commercial or legal interactions” for creating future marketing leads, driving marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” by utilizing clickstream data including user interactions to make predictions (MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)(II)(A), (B) and (C)). The limitations above the are also in the abstract idea category of “mental processes” or things that can be performed in the human mind, but for a computer, models, and algorithms (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)-(D)). The claim recites an abstract idea.
These functions are executed by the prediction module. Additional claim limitations recited are the receiving functions executed by the transceiving module, which is not an abstract idea. The modules are interpreted as computer programs executing instructions on general purpose computers as interpreted under 112(f) [0053]. The modules are therefore executing instructions, ie the abstract ideas on general purpose structures. Instructions to apply abstract ideas in a technical environment with general purpose computing structures is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The transceiving module is not performing an abstract idea, it is receiving information and is unrelated in the functions of the prediction module. The specification does not disclose that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data receiving technology as these functions are described at a high level of generality. Instead, the specification is focused on the nature of the data being transmitted – i.e. the descriptive nature of the data ..
The claims have additional limitations, the data source structure which is a general-purpose website including a database, i.e. the data source is a real-estate website, i.e. software, with a property history table, i.e. a database, and an additional third-party database,. These structures are not abstract ideas and are additional elements that do not amount to practical application. Lastly, the claims recite limitations that describe the nature of the information, clickstream data, property data, wealth properties history, user interaction data, propensity to sell value, lead properties, property address, score, output list, property information and flag. These descriptive information limitations are neither an abstract idea, nor limitations that carry patentable weight in the claim. These limitations cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are non-functional descriptive materials – they do not positively recite any additional functions that limit the claims or the structures of the claims. There are no additional limitations that integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The analysis above for Step 2A, is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 9: The claim recites a calculating function, training function, predicting function, determine parameter’s function, tuning function, and controlling function, in the abstract idea category of “mathematical concepts”, more specifically, “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculations” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). In addition to the mathematical functions, the claim recites a filter function, determine target properties function, generate features function, receive clickstream data function, determine property leads function in the abstract ideas categories of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “fundamental economic practices or principles” for determining both potential target properties future prediction of sale, singling out specific properties, identifying their features, and supplementing future home sales relating to commerce and mitigating risk, “commercial or legal interactions” for creating future marketing leads, driving marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” by utilizing clickstream data including user interactions to make predictions (MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)(II)(A), (B) and (C)). The limitations above are also in the abstract idea category of “mental processes,” or things that can be performed in the human mind, but for a computer, models, and algorithms (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)-(D)). The claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim limitations demonstrating abstract ideas are executed by the data processing module and the prediction module which are not abstract ideas. The modules are interpreted as computer programs executing instructions on general purpose computers as interpreted under 112(f) [0053]. The modules are therefore executing the instructions, i.e., executing the abstract ideas on general purpose structures, stating “apply it.” Instructions to apply abstract ideas in a technical environment with general purpose computing structures is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The transceiving module is not performing an abstract idea, it is receiving information and is unrelated in the functions of the prediction or data processing modules. The specification does not disclose that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data receiving technology as these functions are described at a high level of generality. Instead, the specification is focused on the nature of the data being transmitted – i.e. the descriptive nature of the data.
The claim recites an additional elements, the trained classification model and an eXtreme Gradient Boosting classification algorithm. The classification model is disclosed in the specification ¶ [0021] as comprising a general purpose eXtreme Gradient Boosting classification algorithm, i.e. XGBoost Algorithm that performs the functions of training, predicting, determining, tuning, and controlling the parameters to return data. The machine learning model and algorithm are recited at a high level of generality, where the functions of the models and algorithm are disclosed in terms of the nature of the data being manipulated and returned, or general disclosure of the names and basic functional terms of the parameter modifying functions, i.e. the model and algorithm recitations in the claims and disclosure in the specification are focused on the descriptive nature of the data used and generic model and algorithm processes, where iterative training and dynamic adjustments are indicative of any machine learning model with algorithms, and a scale_pos_weight parameters are indicative of any general purpose xGBoost Gradient Boosting classification algorithm based model. Additionally, the eXtreme Gradient Boosting classification algorithm is an off the shelf algorithm, used specifically for the purposes of classification in machine learning. Therefore, the additional elements of a machine learning model and an eXtreme Gradient Boosting classification algorithm are being used in the claim as a method to generally link the abstract ideal to the technological environment of machine learning and algorithms in the field of property lead finding (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). Further, the claims adds the words “apply it,” generally implementing the abstract idea using the machine learning model and algorithm as a tool for performing the functions. Additionally, since the classification model and an eXtreme Gradient Boosting classification algorithm are broadly recited in the claim and broadly disclosed in the specification, they are not improvements to general purpose classification models or to the specific eXtreme Gradient Boosting classification algorithm, especially where the specification explicitly discloses improvements in ¶ [0010] (and various other locations), relating to feedback, that feedback only improves upon the system itself without consideration of any other competing or existing system, therefore, these additional elements are not indicative of a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Lastly, since the analysis has shown that the claim generally links the abstract idea to a classification model and algorithm, that are merely applied as tools to perform the abstract ideas, where the claim does not improve on the functioning of the classification model, or the eXtreme Gradient Boosting classification algorithm, such that the abstract idea is not be using in some other meaningful way beyond being generally linked to the machine learning model and algorithm, therefore, the claim, as a whole, is no more than a mere drafting effort, designed to monopolize the abstract ideas and is not indicative of a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
There are additional limitations in claim 9, the source of the information, ie. the data source which is a database and is a structure, therefore it is an additional element that is not an abstract idea and simply adds to the general-purpose hardware recited at a high level of generality which fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Lastly, there are limitations that describe the nature of the information, clickstream data, property data, wealth properties history, user interaction data, user interactions, potential target properties, location, a scale_pos_weight parameter, property, plurality of properties, plurality of features, future propensity, property leads, up for sale, a balance of positive and negative weights, positive weights, negative weights, and predefined time. These descriptive information limitations are neither an abstract idea, nor limitations that carry patentable weight in the claim. These limitations cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are non-functional descriptive materials – they do not positively recite any additional functions that limit the claims or the structures of the claims. The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The analysis above for Step 2A, is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements, the discussed modules, limitations, functions, and descriptive information, when considered individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 16: The claims recite 1 calculating function in the abstract idea category of “mathematical concepts”, more specifically, “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculations” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). In addition to the calculate function, the claim recites a filter function, determine potential target function, generate features function, receive clickstream data function, derive property data from user interaction function, and determine property leads function in the abstract ideas categories of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “fundamental economic practices or principles” for determining both potential target properties future prediction of sale, singling out specific properties, deriving property data from user interactions, and identifying their features, supplementing future home sales relating to commerce and mitigating risk, “commercial or legal interactions” for creating future marketing leads, driving marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” by utilizing clickstream data including user interactions to make predictions and deriving property data from user interactions, (MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)(II)(A), (B) and (C)). The limitations above are also in the abstract idea category of “mental processes,” or things that can be performed in the human mind, but for a computer, models, and algorithms or things that can be performed in the human mind, but for a computer, models, and algorithms (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)-(D)). The claim recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim limitations demonstrating abstract ideas are executed by the data processing module and the prediction module which are not abstract ideas. The modules are interpreted as computer programs executing instructions on general purpose computers as interpreted under 112(f) [0053]. The modules are therefore executing the instructions, i.e. executing the abstract ideas on general purpose structures, stating “apply it.” Instructions to apply abstract ideas in a technical environment with general purpose computing structures is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The transceiving module is not performing an abstract idea, it is receiving information and is unrelated in the functions of the prediction or data processing modules. The specification does not disclose that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data receiving technology as these functions are described at a high level of generality. Instead, the specification is focused on the nature of the data being transmitted – i.e. the descriptive nature of the data .
There are additional limitations in claim 16, the source of the information, ie. the data source that is a real-estate website, which is a software website with an included database structure. Claim 16 also recites and a software analytics platform, disclosed in the specification in ¶ [0110] as a “user interaction platform providing analytics like, for example, Google Analytics,” which is a general-purpose analytics platform recited at a high level of generality in terms of the descriptive nature of the data used and derived, only. Therefore, these additional elements are not abstract ideas, but merely software and hardware that are generally linked to the abstract ideas, tools being applied as a means for implementing the abstract ideas without improving the functions of the additional elements, the technology, or the field of use. Additionally, since these additional elements are broadly recited in the claim and broadly disclosed in the specification, they are not improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, especially where the specification explicitly discloses improvements in ¶ [0010] (and various other locations), relating only to feedback, that feedback only improves upon the system itself without consideration of any other competing or existing system, therefore, these additional elements are not indicative of a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Lastly, since the analysis has shown that the claim generally links the abstract idea to a analytics platform, to a website, and to data structures, that are merely applied as tools to perform the abstract ideas, such that the claim does not improve on the functioning of these additional elements in terms of functioning of the technology of a computer, to the technologies of an analytics platform, an improvement to the general structures or technology of websites, an improvement to the technology of data structures or databases, only offering improvements to the instant application system or methods, the abstract idea is not be using in some other meaningful way beyond being generally linked to the additional elements. Therefore, the claim, as a whole, is no more than a mere drafting effort, designed to monopolize the abstract ideas and is not indicative of a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Lastly, there are limitations that describe the nature of the information, clickstream data, property data, wealth properties history, user interaction data, user interactions, potential target properties, location, property, plurality of properties, plurality of features, future propensity, property leads, up for sale, ad predefined time. These descriptive information limitations are neither an abstract idea, nor limitations that carry patentable weight in the claim. These limitations cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are non-functional descriptive materials – they do not positively recite any additional functions that limit the claims or the structures of the claims. The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements, the discussed modules, limitations, functions, and descriptive information, when considered individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims
Regarding Claims 2, 6, 10, and 17: The claims recites limitations that describe the data sources which are general purpose database structures, ie. real estate website and an online data analytics server. These structures are not abstract ideas and are additional elements that do not amount to practical application. They also include limitations that describe data from each source, property data including property ID, bedrooms, bathrooms, parking spaces, area, state, city, region, postcode, suburb, and street, for claims 2, 6, and 10 only: user interaction data, and for claims 6, 10, and 17 only: transaction history data including rent activities and sales activities, properties, propensity data, and high propensity to sell, for claims 2, 10, and 17 only: where all property data comprises a historical property table of the property data,. This descriptive information is neither an abstract idea, nor a limitation that carries patentable weight in the claim.
Regarding Claims 3 and 7: The claims recite the limitations of claim 2 (and 6) and have a preventing function that is an abstract ideas in the categories of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “fundamental economic practices or principles” for filtering receivers of future sales prospects relating to commerce and mitigating risk, “commercial or legal interactions” for limiting future marketing leads, driving marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” for choosing to distribute the output list to no more than one third party (MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)(II)(A), (B) and (C)). The limitation above is also in the abstract idea category of “mental processes,” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)-(D))
These claims recite a prediction module that performs the preventing function, where the module is a computer program executed on a general-purpose computer as interpreted under 112(f) from [0053]. The prediction module is therefore executing the abstract ideas on general purpose structures, stating “apply it.” Instructions to apply abstract ideas in a technical environment with general purpose computing structures is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in basic data filtering/preventing technology, in fact these functions are described at a high level of generality. Instead, the specification focused on the nature of the data being filtered and the nature of the data receiver ..
The additional limitations in the claim include the lead property, output list, high propensity to be assigned, property addresses, and third party. These are non-functional descriptive information limitations and are neither an abstract idea, nor limitations that carry patentable weight in the claim. These limitations cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are non-functional descriptive materials – they do not positively recite any additional functions that limit the claims or the structures of the claims. There are no additional limitations that integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application when the limitations are considered individually or when the claim is considered as a whole. The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application .
The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements, the discussed modules, limitations, functions, and descriptive information, when considered individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4 and 8: The claims recite the limitations of Claim 1 (and 5) and recite a third-party device which is a structure. These structures are not abstract ideas and are additional elements that do not amount to practical application. The claims recite a feedback loop function which is an abstract idea in the categories of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “fundamental economic practices or principles” for providing a feedback loop to the function of the system to ensure better future sales prospects relating to commerce and mitigating risk, “commercial or legal interactions” for providing a feedback loop to predicting future marketing leads, driving marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” using feedback loops to upgrade the performance of the system (MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)(II)(A), (B) and (C)). The limitation above is also in the abstract idea category of “mental processes,” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)-(D)) The other 3 functions are connecting to device and sending and receiving information. There are three modules, a data sharing module, feedback module, and a lea