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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 01/21/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-20 are pending.
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 1-4, 7-11, 13-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method, a system, and a non-transitory storage medium; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of providing property related information to an authorized person who has access to that information, such as a property manager that is managing a number of apartment buildings. This is reciting a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea as will be set forth below.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 19, 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving a request from a first user to access a lease transaction management system;
determining a first organization and a first role associated with a current session of the first user;
based on the first organization and the first role associated with the current session, displaying a list of properties for which the first user is authorized to view based on the first role and the first organization;
receiving selection of a first property;
determining, for each leasable unit of the first property, a leasing status of the leasable unit and deal status information indicating any deals in progress for the leasable unit; and
providing for presentation, a property visualization for the first property to the first user,
wherein the property visualization includes a property representation of the first property and representations of the leasable units, wherein the representations of the leasable units include indications of the leasing status and deal status for the leasable units
wherein the indications of deal status include deal type indicators showing whether the deal in progress is a contraction, expansion, relocation, or renewal deal;
receiving selection of a representation of a first leasable unit;
displaying, in response to selection of the representation of the first leasable unit, detailed information for the first leasable unit; and
automatically updating the property visualization for the first property to reflect creation of a first deal
The above limitations are reciting a process of property management, which is a commercial practice from the real estate industry. This can also be viewed as being a fundamental economic practice as the management of properties for lease (such as apartment buildings) is economic in nature and is ubiquitous in the real estate industry. Managing properties for lease is a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea.
For claims 1, 19, 20, the additional elements are the user interface that is claimed as being customized by displaying the data that is part of the abstract idea, the property visualization interface to display data to the user, and the lease transaction management system.
Claim 19 additionally recites the additional elements of one or more computers and the computer readable medium that has stored instructions to perform the steps that define the abstract idea.
Claim 20 additionally recites the additional element of a computer program product that is on a non-transitory computer readable medium, that is executing instructions to perform the claimed steps that define the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device with an interface(s), a processor and memory, all of which are simply being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea. The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory, and using a generically recited user interface to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web) and that has an interface of some kind, all generically recited. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed customization of the interface is being defined by the data to be displayed, where the data to be displayed and the display of the data is part of the abstract idea. The interface is not reciting specific structure that is coupled to a functionality that is directly related to the interface such that it amounts to more than a general instruction for one to use an interface to display data to a property manager. The same is noted for the visualization user interface that is displaying data. The claimed user interface and the property visualization interface is only being used to display data or to receive a user selection of a first property, which is simply using the interface as a tool to execute the abstract idea. The only functions of the claim that are related to the interface is the display of data and receipt of a user input, which is what all interfaces provide for. For that reason the claims are not reciting a specifically structured interface that provides for an improvement to the interface itself.
Therefore, the above is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory and using a generically recited user interface(s) to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard. The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory, and using a generically recited user interface to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web) and that has an interface of some kind, all generically recited. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed customization of the interface is being defined by the data to be displayed, which is part of the abstract idea. The interface is not reciting specific structure that is coupled to a functionality that is directly related to the interface such that it amounts to more than a general instruction for one to use an interface to display data to a property manager. The same is noted or the visualization interface that is only being used to display for presentation the claimed property visualization. The claimed user interface and the property visualization interface is only being used to display data or to receive a user selection of a first property, which is simply using the interface as a tool to execute the abstract idea. The only functions of the claim that are related to the interface is the display of data and receipt of a user input, which is what all interfaces provide for. For that reason the claims are not reciting a specifically structured interface that provides for an improvement to the interface itself. The combination of the additional elements in view of the claim as a whole does not provide for significantly more because it amounts to an instruction for one to use computers with an interface(s) to execute the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 19, 20, are not found to be reciting any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 2-4, the applicant is reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was set forth for claim 1. Claiming the role(s) as being a property owner or leasing team member, and the visual representation of the floors of the property that indicates leasable units are elements that serve to further define the abstract idea of claim 1. These elements are directed to more about the abstract idea of property management. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 7-9, the applicant is reciting more about the abstract idea of claim 1.
The recited elements about deal creation options to allow for different types of deals, that includes contraction, expansion, relocation, and renewal deals are element that are part of the abstract idea. This is reciting deal options that is claiming legal contracts and options for their creation. This is part of the abstract idea of the claims and is still defining a certain method of organizing human activities. The same is noted for the elements reciting selection of a first selectable deal option, this is considered to be part of the abstract idea. The interface that is recited in claim 7 has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 6, to which applicant is referred. The claimed use of a details interface to display the data is reciting the use of an interface of a computer to do what they do, which is to display data to users and to allow for interaction with a user. This is interpreted as being an instruction for one to use a computer with an interface to implement the abstract idea, and does not provide for integration into a practical application or significant more, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 10, the claimed launching a deal creation interface is an additional element that is not considered to be part of the abstract idea. The use of an interface as claimed is generically recited and is not recited as having any particular structure. This is taken as an instruction for one to use a computer with an interface to perform the steps that define the abstract idea, and does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP2106.05(f).
For claims 11, 13-17, are reciting further elements that are defining more about the same abstract idea of claim 1. The receipt of a confirmation of a deal, updating the first leasable unit to reflect the deal first deal, changing a status for a second leasable unit, updating the property visualization to reflect a change in status for the second leasable unit, and having the visualization be vertical stacking plan or an overhead stacking plan, are all elements that are simply providing a further embellishment of the same abstract idea of claim 1, just in a narrower manner. This does not introduce any further additional elements for consideration by the examiner other than claiming more about the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 18, the recited overhead visualization that is overlaid on top of a map as claimed is also a further embellishment of the abstract idea. This can be done using paper and laying an overlay on a paper map, similar to how an overhead projector works with multiple sheets of overhead project paper/plastic being used. This is part of the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 13-17, 19, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverman et al. (20070174083) in view of Johnston et al. (20130304655).
For claim 1-4, 13, 14, 19, 20, Silverman discloses a computerized system and method of presenting leasing information to property managers or owners or leasing team members, that includes a visual representation of the building and its floors and leasable units. In general see paragraph 031 for an overview of the invention of Silverman. The claimed step of receiving a request for a first user to access a lease transaction management system is disclosed in paragraph 045 and as shown in figure 2. This is satisfied by a user such as a property manager or an owner or a leasing team member (see paragraphs 032, 036) logging into the system with a user ID and a password so that they can obtain access to the leasing system 10. The leasing system includes a computer and memory with instructions as claimed that are used to perform the various functions disclosed by Silverman. The claimed determining of the organization and role for the user is satisfied by Silverman teaching that different users have different access levels to the system, where the system identifies the user of an organization so that the properties and buildings that are displayed will be those that the user/manager/owner is responsible for. See paragraphs 32-34, 36, 50 in this regard. Different users even in the same organization can have different access levels and roles defined in the leasing system 10. Upon being granted access to the system, the user is presented with an interface (GUI 54) that is customized to the user because it is made to display different data or different options or different properties that the given user is allowed to have access to. The claimed customization of the interface to display a list of properties for which the user is authorized to view is satisfied by Silverman teaching that users are granted access to view data for properties they are responsible for managing. This satisfies the claimed customization of the interface based on the organization and the role for the user. The claimed receiving a selection of a property is satisfied by a user in Silverman selecting a building, see paragraphs 060, 061. Figure 9 also shows an interface that allows a user to select a property that is a building, where upon selection the user is taken to the interface that is shown in figure 13. A user such as a property manager can select from the various buildings that they are managing so that the information for a selected building will be displayed. The determining of the leasing status for a leasable unit is satisfied by Silverman disclosing that data for the leasable units is displayed, which includes the leasing status (available or rented). See paragraphs 069-076 where the information for the different leasable units is displayed by providing the user with a property visualization that represents each leasable unit of a given building (the claimed property) and that includes an indication of the leasing status and deal status. See figure 13. The visual representation is disclosed as being a stacking plan that includes visual representations of each property and each floor of the property (the floors of the building). See paragraphs 031, 069, 077. This allows a property manager to easily and quickly ascertain the rental status of any of the units of a given building, where status information and lease information, etc., can be obtained and viewed for each unit of each building, upon selection by the user from the stacking plan that is set forth in figure 13. Paragraph 073 teaches that the stacking plan uses color coding to represent length of time remaining on a lease, or if a unit is available, a unit that has one month left on the lease, etc.. Paragraph 074 teaches that the color coding allows for a quick visual determination as to the status of a given leasable unit. Also see paragraph 075. The claimed receiving of a selection of a leasable unit and providing detailed information for the leasable unit is satisfied by a user selecting a given unit from the stacking plan such that further information about the unit is provided to the user. See paragraph 071 that teaches the user selecting a space and being provided with detailed information about the space.
Silverman teaches in paragraph 103 that the system can display icons that represent lease terms, such as if the lease is a renewal option or an expansion option.
However, Silverman does not expressly teach that the property visualization includes the deal status indicators as claimed for a deal in progress, which are the in the form of a contraction, an expansion, relocation, or renewal. Also not taught is that the property visualization is updated to reflect creation of a deal.
Johnston teaches a system and method for management of property information that includes the management of lease deals that are in progress, see paragraph 018, 063. In paragraph 121 it is disclosed that deals for property leases include a new lease, a renewal lease, a relocation lease, or an expansion lease. Johnston discloses deals status indicators that of a renewal and an expansion, as is taught by Silverman. Johnston is teaching to one of ordinary skill in the art the importance of allowing one to track and view information about lease deals that are in progress or that have not been executed yet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Silverman with the further ability to display deal status indicators that indicate the status of a deal in progress as taught by Johnston, so that information about any pending deals can be viewed from the property visualization of Silverman. In paragraph 071 Silverman teaches that the system allows a user to access rental space information including a list of documents for the space, where the system can also generate a proposal for a rental (which is a proposed deal). It would have been obvious to provide the stacking plan of Silverman with the deal status indicator as claimed so that a user can view information about deals in progress as well as visualizing information about leases that are currently in affect. This would provide the predictable result of allowing a user to access information about a leasable unit that includes information for deals in progress.
With respect to updating the property visualization for the property and/or for the leasable unit (claims 1, 13, 14), this flows from the above modification to Silverman as far as when a new “in progress” deal is created, such as a proposed deal, the property visualization will include an icon that is reflective of the deal that has been created for a given leasable unit. This is the reason the visualization is used by Silverman, namely so that current information about leasable units of a property can be provided to a user via a property visualization.
For claims 7, 9, 10, Silverman discloses that a user can make a selection that launches a lease proposal wizard (the claimed deal creation user interface) that generates a lease proposal for a lease, see paragraphs 071, 082, 086 for the lease proposal and wizard. This satisfies what is claimed as far as having a selectable deal option to create different types of deals. This is satisfied by a user being able to create whatever deal proposal they want to for a given unit of a property.
For claim 8, Silverman and Johnston disclose deals such as an expansion, relocation, or a renewal. Not disclosed is the contraction type of deal. The examiner notes that those of ordinary skill in the art understand that a contraction deal is known in the art as a clause that allows a tenant to reduce the size of their leased space, which the examiner takes official notice of again. The claimed types of “deals” are taught by the cited art and are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art and will depend on the situation at hand, the type of property and whether or not the lease is a new lease or a renewal or a person relocating for a job. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Silverman with the ability to create deals in the form of a contraction, an expansion, relocation, and/or a renewal.
For claim 15, Silverman discloses that when a status of a leasable unit changes, the visual representation is automatically updated to reflect the new status. See paragraph 088 where it is disclosed that as new leases are signed, the status of a given unit is changed to reflect the lease in the stacking plan that is shown in figure 13. This satisfies what is claimed. The visual representation is updated when a status of a unit changes and is the reason that the system is being used in the first place, namely to allow users to quickly and easily ascertain the status of a property and its rental units.
For claims 16, 17, see paragraphs 071 and 077 respectively. Figure 13 and paragraph 071 teaches the claimed vertical stacking plan. Paragraph 077 teaches that the stacking plan can be an overhead plan from above. This satisfies the claimed overhead visualization for the first property.
For claim 11, not disclosed by Silverman is that a confirmation of the deal creation is received from the interface. While not disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the users with an indication if the deal has been generated, such as by indicating that the message to the user for whom the deal was created has been sent or that the webpage created for the user has been generated, all of which are taught by Silverman.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverman et al. (20070174083) in view of Johnston et al. (20130304655) and further in view of Schmitt et al. (20170090441).
For claim 18, Silverman does not disclose that the visualization is overlaid on a graphical map of the geographic location that includes the property.
Schmitt disclose a building management system that is able to display an overlay of a building on a map for a user. See the Abstract, and paragraphs 004, 011, 027, 197. This yields the predictable result of allowing a user to visualize the building and where it is located on a map. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Silverman with the ability to overlay the visualization of the property on a map so that the user can see where the building is located on a map, as taught by Schmitt. This would provide a user with the ability to see the location of the building on a map.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 7 of the reply the applicant summarizes the rejection of record under 35 USC 101 and alleges that the claims are reciting a specific visualization system with particular technical functionality that improves the functioning of the interface itself. The applicant then argues the claimed limitations that includes those that define the abstract idea and those that are additional elements. The applicant argues that the claims are not reciting any grouping of abstract ideas. This is not persuasive as the claims are reciting steps that are undertaken to perform management of properties and leases for the properties. This is claiming a commercial practice that is a certain method of organizing human activities. With respect to the allegation that the interface of the claims is being improved, this is not persuasive. The claimed user interface and the property visualization interface is only being used to display data or to receive a user selection of a first property, which is simply using the interface as a tool to execute the abstract idea. The only functions of the claim that are related to the interface is the display of data and receipt of a user input, which is what all interfaces provide for. For that reason the claims are not reciting a specifically structured interface that provides for an improvement to the interface itself. The particular technical functionality that the applicant feels is an improvement to the interface is simply the ability to display data and the ability to receive a data input from the user. This is not a specific interface but is a general interface that is being claimed at a very high level of generality such that is does not amount to more than a general link to the use of a computer to perform the abstract idea. This does not render the claims eligible.
On pages 8-9 of the reply the applicant continues to argue that the interface is a specific interactive interface that is a technical improvement. For the same reasons addressed immediately above, the argument is not persuasive.
On page 9 the applicant argues that the property visualization is automatically updated. The automatic updating of the visualization is considered to be part of the abstract idea, and at most is reciting a link to using a computer to update a display of data. The automatic updating of data on a display screen, such as displaying stock prices in real time, is the use of a computer to provide for an updated display of data and is nothing more than an instruction for one to use a computer to execute the abstract idea. The argument that automatic updating of a display is inventive because it does not require manual refreshing is not persuasive. Claiming that an interface displays updated information is not a particular technical implementation that is reciting how the interface works. The claim at most is reciting functional language of the data to be displayed with no indication of how the interface is being updated such that would amount to an improvement to technology in the interface art. The argument is not persuasive.
The traversal of the prior art rejection is considered to be moot based on the new grounds of rejection that has been applied to the pending claims, and that was necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
The traversal for claim 18 is not persuasive. The applicant argues that Schmitt does not teach or suggest the claimed deal indicators for a deal in progress, which is considered moot based on the new grounds of rejection in view of Johnston.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
