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
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended in the response filed November 21, 2026.
Claims 3 and 12 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-18 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-18 are rejected.
Detailed rejections begin on page 3.
Response to arguments begins on page 43.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the module further configured to validate completeness of submitted bids before storing them.” This limitation is not disclosed in the Specification. Although disclosing that sales can be completed in paragraph [0003], the Specification makes no mention of validating completeness of submitted bids before storing them. Therefore, the claims recite new matter and are rejected.
Claim 1 also recites “wherein the selection triggers a workflow including . . . assignment of a unique sale identifier.” This limitation is not disclosed in the Specification. Although disclosing that sales can be completed in paragraph [0003] and that terms of an accepted bid are recorded and locked in the system, the Specification makes no mention of assigning a unique sales identifier. Therefore, the claims recite new matter and are rejected.
Claims 2 and 4-9 are dependent from claim 1, and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
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 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The steps for determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be found in the MPEP § 2106.03-2106.05.
Under Step 1, the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 1-2 and 4-9, is directed to a machine.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of selling an item or property. Specifically, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
allow a seller to register a property or item for sale and input property information;
receive, structure, and store property or item data,
enables automated identification of agents based on stored property attributes and agent criteria;
permit third-party agents to submit bids including sales commission terms and one or more selected marketing services from a predefined menu of available services,
validate completeness of submitted bids before storing them;
index submitted bids based on property ID, timestamp, and service selections;
generate and display a seller dashboard showing multiple agent bids in a comparative matrix with associated commission rates, selected marketing services, bid timestamps, and agent identifiers;
allow the seller to accept, reject, or shortlist one or more submitted bids, wherein the selection triggers a workflow including record locking, agent notification, and assignment of a unique sale identifier,
wherein the system includes comparison of agent proposals across standardized bid parameters.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in the guidance. When considering MPEP §2106.04(a), the claims recite an abstract idea. For example, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of selling an item or property, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined in the MPEP as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection II. In this case, the abstract idea recited in claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because allow a seller to register a property or item for sale and input property information, allow the seller to electronically accept, reject, or shortlist one or more submitted bids, wherein the selection triggers a workflow including digital record locking, agent notification, and assignment of a unique sale identifier, wherein the system includes comparison of agent proposals across standardized bid parameters are sales activities. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The recited limitations of claim 1 also recite an abstract idea because they are considered to be mental processes. As described in the MPEP, mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection III. In this case, allow a seller to register a property or item for sale and input property information; receive, structure, and store property or item data; showing submitted bids with associated commission offers and marketing services in a comparative layout; enables automated identification of agents based on stored property attributes and agent criteria; permit third-party agents to submit bids including sales commission terms and one or more selected marketing services from a predefined menu of available services; validate completeness of submitted bids before storing them; index submitted bids based on property ID, timestamp, and service selections; generate and display a seller dashboard showing multiple agent bids in a comparative matrix with associated commission rates, selected marketing services, bid timestamps, and agent identifiers; and allow the seller to electronically accept, reject, or shortlist one or more submitted bids, wherein the selection triggers a workflow including digital record locking, agent notification, and assignment of a unique sale identifier, wherein the system includes comparison of agent proposals across standardized bid parameters are types of judgement. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. See MPEP §2106.04(d). In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as a system comprising: at least one user computing device, the user computing device operably connected to a user network; a listing module; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system: a listing module; a centralized listing database; a bid/pitch module, agent computing devices; a bid/pitch database operably connected to the bid/pitch module and structured to allow structured comparative retrieval; a display module configured to generate and display an interactive graphical user interface, and a selection interface configured to electronically accept, reject, or shortlist one or more submitted bids, digital record locking, wherein the system includes programmed logic enabling real-time data flow between all modules and structured comparison.
Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., selling an item or property) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP §§2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. As such, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). See MPEP §2106.05.
Here, as noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components ... ‘ad[d] nothing ... that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Also see MPEP §2106.05(f). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-9 do not aid in the eligibility of claim 1. For example, claims 2, 4-5 and 7 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1. Also, claims 6 and 8-9 merely provide further embellishments of the abstract limitations recited in independent claim 1.
Additionally, it is noted that claim 2 includes further additional elements of an auto-bid module; claim 4 includes further additional elements of a property/item database; claim 5 includes further additional elements of a document module to permit the upload of one or more documents; claim 6 includes further additional elements of the document module uploads the one or more documents to a documents interface; claim 7 includes further additional elements of a video module to permit the upload of one or more videos; claim 8 includes further additional elements of the video module uploads the one or more videos to a bid/pitch interface; and claim 9 includes further additional elements of the video is previously recorded. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, dependent claims 2 and 4-9 are also ineligible.
Claims 10-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The steps for determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be found in the MPEP § 2106.03-2106.05.
Under Step 1, the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 10-11 and 13-18, is directed to a machine.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of selling an item or property. Specifically, claim 10 recites the abstract idea of:
allow a seller to register a property or item for sale by inputting listing data;
store and transmit structured property or item data, and perform automated agent matching based on property attributes and agent criteria;
permit third-party agents to submit bids or pitches that include commission-based offer terms and one or more selected marketing services from a predefined menu of service options;
store and index submitted bids based on property identifiers, commission terms, service selections, and timestamps;
present a plurality of submitted bids in a comparative layout including commission terms, selected marketing services, agent identifiers, and timestamps;
permit the seller to accept, reject, or shortlist one or more bids, wherein selection triggers a bid status update, notifies the submitting agent, and locks the bid in the system for further transaction processing.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in the guidance. When considering MPEP §2106.04(a), the claims recite an abstract idea. For example, claim 10 recites the abstract idea of selling an item or property, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined in the MPEP as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection II. In this case, the abstract idea recited in claim 10 is a certain method of organizing human activity because allow a seller to register a property or item for sale by inputting listing data; permit third-party agents to submit bids or pitches that include commission-based offer terms and selected marketing services from a predefined set of options; presents a plurality of submitted bids to the seller in a comparative layout including bid terms, associated marketing services, and timestamps; and enables real-time bid submission, evaluation, and selection by sellers, and provides feedback to selected agents are sales activities. Thus, claim 10 recites an abstract idea.
The recited limitations of claim 1 also recite an abstract idea because they are considered to be mental processes. As described in the MPEP, mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection III. In this case, allow a seller to register a property or item for sale by inputting listing data; store and transmit structured property or item information accessible by agent; permit third-party agents to submit bids or pitches that include commission-based offer terms and selected marketing services from a predefined set of options; store the structured bid data, including commission rates and selected services, in association with each submitted bid; presents a plurality of submitted bids to the seller in a comparative layout including bid terms, associated marketing services, and timestamps; and enables real-time bid submission, evaluation, and selection by sellers, and provides feedback to selected agents are types of judgement. Thus, claim 10 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. See MPEP §2106.04(d). In this case, claim 10 includes additional elements such as a system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network, the at least one user computing device, the user computing device being in operable connection with the user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system comprising: a listing module, a centralized listing database accessible by agent computing devices; a bid/pitch module via agent computing devices; a bid/pitch database; a bid/pitch interface comprising an interactive graphical display rendered on a seller dashboard; and a selection interface configured to electronically accept, reject, or shortlist one or more bids.
Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claim 10 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., selling an item or property) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP §§2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. As such, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). See MPEP §2106.05.
In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 10 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 10 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components ... ‘ad[d] nothing ... that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Also see MPEP §2106.05(f). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, claim 10 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 10 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, claim 10 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 11 and 13-18 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 10. For example, claims 11, 13-14 and 16 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 10. Also, claims 15 and 17-18 merely provide further embellishments of the abstract limitations recited in independent claim 10.
Additionally, it is noted that claim 11 includes further additional elements of an auto-bid module; claim 13 includes further additional elements of a property/item database; claim 14 includes further additional elements of a document module to permit the upload of one or more documents; claim 15 includes further additional elements of the document module uploads the one or more documents to a documents interface; claim 16 includes further additional elements of a video module to permit the upload of one or more videos; claim 17 includes further additional elements of the video module uploads the one or more videos to a bid/pitch interface; and claim 18 includes further additional elements of the video is previously recorded. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, dependent claims 11 and 13-18 are also ineligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLain et. al. (US 20060178978 A1, herein referred to as McLain), in view of Sanders (US 20050049937 A1, herein referred to as Sanders), in further view of Barlow (US 20140279149 A1, herein referred to as Barlow).
Claim 1:
McLain discloses:
A system for a seller to receive offers and bids to sell an item or property by a third party agent {McLain: fig 1, system 100; [0038] seller's request to solicit bids to list a property from one or more brokers.}, the system comprising:
at least one user computing device configured to allow a seller to register a property or item for sale and input property information into a listing module, the user computing device operably connected to a user network {McLain: fig 1, 104a-n seller computer and 106m-z broker computer communicating via 108 network to server computer 102 with property profile pages 142a-n; [0006] receiving, via the seller computer, a request to list a property for sale};
an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system comprising {McLain: fig 1, 118 memory hosts platform instructions on 102 server communicating via 108 network; [0030] implemented as Java applets}:
a listing module configured to receive, structure, and store property or item data into a centralized listing database, wherein the listing module enables automated identification of agents based on stored property attributes and agent criteria {McLain: server computer 102 with property profile pages 142a-n and connected to database 124; [0030] each property profile page 142a-142n (i.e., listing module) may comprise a respective user interface for the bid server 128 and may be implemented as Java applets; [0028] allow the seller that has registered a property with the bid server 128. Respective seller's property listing information may be stored by the bid server 128 in the database 124 in accordance with a property number assigned by the bid server 128 based on the respective seller. The bid server 128 is able to recognize the last property number assigned to property of a seller such that the listing bid 128 is able to assign a next property number when the seller requests that bids be solicited on another property. By assigning a property number to the listing information provided by a seller, the bid server 128 is able to allow a broker to access the property listing information and bid to list the property while the seller and the broker each remain anonymous to each other; [0032] broker registration page 132 displayed on a broker computer (e.g., broker computer 106m) in response to the broker's request to register to bid to list an available property. Before granting access to the broker registration page 132, the bid server 128 may first require the person seeking access to provide a user name 302 in FIG. 3 and a password 304 so that the bid server 128 is able to identify the user as a member broker (i.e., a previously registered broker); [0034] broker may input, via keyboard entry on the user interface 300, the one or more zip codes 330 associated with the area 328 in which the broker operates. As discussed below, the bid server 128 is operatively configured to provide a property profile page 142a-142n to a broker based on listing information for the property. In one implementation, the bid server 128 provides the property profile page 142a to the broker when the zip code of the property is determined by the bid server 128 to be within the geographic area 328 identified by the broker. Examiner interprets assigning property numbers to maintain anonymity as structuring data into the database.};
a bid/pitch module configured to permit third-party agents, via agent computing devices, to submit bids including sales commission terms, the module further configured to validate submitted bids before storing them {McLain: fig 1, broker computers 106m-z accessing web page 144 via browser 112; [0029] properties available page 140 or property profile pages 142a-142n may include a link to a web page 144 (i.e., bid/pitch module) generated by bid server 128 to allow a broker to make a bid on a corresponding property; [0047] bid form 802 also includes a commission or fee field 806 where the broker may identify to the bid server 128 the total commission rate or fee that the broker desires for selling the property. In addition, the bid form 802 may also include a commission paid to buyer's broker field 808 where the broker may identify to the bid server 128 the commission that will be paid to a Buyer's Broker (if any) when the sale of the property is closed; [0033] bid server 128 may use the private broker information 318 to verify, via on-line MLS directory databases or real estate agent databases, whether the broker is an MLS member or licensed real estate agent before allowing the broker to submit a bid to list a property.},
the bid/pitch module and structured to index submitted bids based on property ID and agent identifiers to allow structured comparative retrieval {McLain: fig 1, broker computers 106m-z accessing web page 144 via browser 112; [0029] properties available page 140 or property profile pages 142a-142n may include a link to a web page 144 (i.e., bid/pitch module) generated by bid server 128 to allow a broker to make a bid on a corresponding property; [0028] bid server 128 is able to recognize the last property number assigned to property of a seller such that the listing bid 128 is able to assign a next property number when the seller requests that bids be solicited on another property; [0036] bid server 128 then stores the current bidder number in association with the public broker information and the private broker information (Step 218), such that the current bidder number (e.g., bidder number 910 in FIG. 9) represents the broker and may be used by the bid server 128 to refer to the broker when providing a bid from the broker to the seller. Thus, the bid server 128 allows the broker to remain anonymous when providing a bid to the seller; [0049] Each entry in the list of bids 902 may include a bid number 908 and a broker or bidder number 910. The bid number 908 is assigned to the bid by the bid server 128 in order to track the bid in relation to the bidder number (e.g., the broker that submitted the bid). Each entry in the list of bids 902 may also include a property number field 912 that has the property number 608 assigned to the property, the commission or fee 806 submitted by the broker, and the commission paid to buyer's broker 808 as submitted by the broker.};
a display module configured to generate and display an interactive graphical user interface on a seller dashboard showing multiple agent bids in a comparative matrix with associated commission rates, and agent identifiers {McLain: fig 1, seller computer 104a-n access bid pages 134a-n via browser 110; fig 9, list of bids 902; [0030] Each seller's bids page 134a-134n (i.e., display module) may comprise a respective user interface for the bid server 128; [0049] If a bid has been received, the bid server 128 provides the received bid to the seller of the property. The seller may cause the bid server 128 to provide a list of bids 902 submitted by one or more brokers for display in a panel 904 of the user interface 900 when a corresponding hyperlink button 906 is actuated by the seller. Each entry in the list of bids 902 may include a bid number 908 and a broker or bidder number 910. The bid number 908 is assigned to the bid by the bid server 128 in order to track the bid in relation to the bidder number (e.g., the broker that submitted the bid). Each entry in the list of bids 902 may also include a property number field 912 that has the property number 608 assigned to the property, the commission or fee 806 submitted by the broker, and the commission paid to buyer's broker 808 as submitted by the broker; [0047] bid form 802 also includes a commission or fee field 806 where the broker may identify to the bid server 128 the total commission rate or fee that the broker desires for selling the property};
a selection interface configured to allow the seller to electronically accept, reject, or shortlist one or more submitted bids, wherein the selection triggers a workflow including agent notification, and assignment of a unique sale identifier {McLain: fig 9, display panel 904 has button “Have Selected Brokers Contact Me”; [0024] Each seller computer 104a-104n and each broker computer 106m-106z may also include a respective messaging tool (e.g., messaging tool 111 and 113), which may be any known e-mail tool or instant messaging tool (i.e., real-time interaction) capable of receiving a message across the network 108; [0053] bid status 912 hyperlink (i.e., unique sale identifier) may be selected by the seller to indicate to the bid server 128 that the respective bid has been accepted. Formal acceptance of a contract between the seller and the respective broker may take place before or after the seller identifies that the broker's bid has been accepted. If the bid has not been accepted, the bid server 128 continues processing at step 420 so that other recently registered brokers may also be provided with the listing information of the property. If the bid has been accepted, the bid server 128 alerts brokers that the property is no longer available for bidding before ending processing};
wherein the system includes programmed logic enabling real-time data flow between all modules and structured comparison of agent proposals across standardized bid parameters {McLain: fig 8, bid form 802; fig 9, list of bids 902; [0047] bid form 802 also includes a commission or fee field 806 where the broker may identify to the bid server 128 the total commission rate or fee that the broker desires for selling the property. In addition, the bid form 802 may also include a commission paid to buyer's broker field 808 where the broker may identify to the bid server 128 the commission that will be paid to a Buyer's Broker (if any) when the sale of the property is closed. In one implementation, the broker submits the bid form 802 to the bid server 128 by actuating the "Enter the Bid" button 810; [0049] seller may cause the bid server 128 to provide a list of bids 902 submitted by one or more brokers for display in a panel 904 of the user interface 900 when a corresponding hyperlink button 906 is actuated by the seller. Each entry in the list of bids 902 may include a bid number 908 and a broker or bidder number 910. The bid number 908 is assigned to the bid by the bid server 128 in order to track the bid in relation to the bidder number (e.g., the broker that submitted the bid). Each entry in the list of bids 902 may also include a property number field 912 that has the property number 608 assigned to the property, the commission or fee 806 submitted by the broker, and the commission paid to buyer's broker 808 as submitted by the broker; [0031] programming languages and user-interface approaches may also be used to implement the bid server 128 in accordance with the present invention; Examiner interprets that the form is standardized and thus the bid parameters are standardized.}.
Although disclosing a bid soliciting system, McLain does not disclose:
wherein the bid comprises selected marketing services from a predefined list of services,
index submitted bids based on service selections; and
a comparative matrix with associated selected marketing services.
McLain does disclose that the property listing can have requested services for the broker and marketing services can be requested by the seller (McLain: fig. 7, [0002]), and the bids can be listed in a table in the interface (McLain: fig 9, display 904).
However, Sanders teaches:
wherein the bid comprises selected marketing services from a predefined list of services {Sanders: [0041] The business method and processing system sellers offer preferred deals for select offerings; [0206] providing features for listing of product/service offerings for requisitioning marketing to others};
index submitted bids based on service selections {Sanders: [0202] search process by location/building, industry, keyword, and product/service offering interest to find a list of preferred offerings made available}; and
a matrix with associated selected marketing services {Sanders: fig 16E demonstrating a list of offerings in a table fashion; [0202] a list of preferred offerings made available}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included marketing services as taught in Sanders in the bid soliciting system of McLain in order to open up a new market at virtually no cost for sellers to engage in neighborly dealings with a new community (Sanders: [0041]).
Neither McLain nor Sanders disclose:
a bid/pitch database operably connected to the bid/pitch module and configured to store and manage submitted bids.
the module further configured to validate completeness of submitted bids before storing them;
index submitted bids based on timestamp;
a matrix with associated bid timestamps; and
wherein the selection triggers a workflow including digital record locking.
McLain does disclose a webpage (bid/pitch module) that can receive bids from the broker (third party agent) and storing them in database 124 (McLain: fig 1; [0029]).
However, Barlow teaches:
a bid/pitch database operably connected to the bid/pitch module and configured to store and manage submitted bids {Barlow: [0012] invention may comprise a reverse auction focused on service areas as a business model and accessed via a website on desktop or mobile platform. Customers may post requests for proposals for various services and receive competitive quotes from service providers via the online site; [0030] bid-data-analysis 108 can be performed in the database network 100 such that such data is gathered, compared to direct data 102 and stored for analysis by the users of network 100.};
the module further configured to validate completeness before storing them {Barlow: [0055] each event is individually reviewed, edited and confirmed for accuracy before posting; [0030] events that can be stored in service categories such that the search can be made within the categories or even sub-categories as desired};
index submitted bids based on timestamp {Barlow: [0071] "Live RA Graph" is a real-time graph displaying the bidding progression. The graph corresponds to the calendar date and timeframe (start and end time) of the event as previously selected on the service request event creation screens. The timeframe of the event runs along the x-axis (horizontal) and the service provider bid amounts run along the y-axis (vertical).};
a matrix with associated bid timestamps {Barlow: fig 4 shows table with bids and their corresponding dates; [0071] "Live RA Graph" is a real-time graph displaying the bidding progression. The graph corresponds to the calendar date and timeframe (start and end time) of the event as previously selected on the service request event creation screens. The timeframe of the event runs along the x-axis (horizontal) and the service provider bid amounts run along the y-axis (vertical).}; and
wherein the selection triggers a workflow including digital record locking {Barlow: [0073] users, who become the ultimate beneficiaries of the economies of scale and scope that they generate and, therefore, get virtually locked into the system with the value; [0101] dialogue box would accept meta-information pertaining to the file such as desired delivery time, mode of delivery, etc. At the receiving end, the file would be received instantaneously, get routed to the server capable of scheduling the service request, send an instant message via a dialogue box back to the user confirming receipt of the service request and advising the status of the job while being processed.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a bid database to store the bid offers as taught by Barlow in the bid soliciting system of McLain in order to provide as much information to the parties as is possible to facilitate the statement of work and bidding process (Barlow: [0030]).
Claim 2:
McLain, Sanders, and Barlow teach the system of claim 1. McLain does not disclose:
an auto-bid module to receive bid/offer criteria from an agent and to submit an automated bid for the property or the item.
McLain does disclose receiving bid/offer criteria submission from one or more brokers (McLain: [0049]).
However, Barlow teaches:
an auto-bid module to receive bid/offer criteria from an agent and to submit an automated bid for the property or the item {Barlow: fig, 150 Service Provider interface with “Auto Bid” box 202; [0088] the Service Provider may choose to "Auto Bid" at anytime during the live event. The "Auto Bid" functions by the Service Provider placing a "High" and "Low" dollar value which represents the highest and lowest amount the Service Provider is willing to perform work on the service request event. Upon submission, the system will auto-bid on the Service Provider's behalf acting as a stand-in The "Auto-Bid" functionality will take into account the current ranking of the service provider, the min/max bid reduction range, as well as the Service Provider's "high" and "low" bid dollar value.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an automated bid increment interface as taught by Barlow in the bid soliciting system of McLain so that the Service Provider must not be present or monitor continuously online (Barlow: [0088]).
Claim 4:
McLain, Sanders, and Barlow teach the system of claim 1. McLain further discloses:
a property/item database to store property/item information {McLain: [0028] respective seller's property listing information and bids on the property may be stored by the bid server 128 in the database 124}.
Claim 5:
McLain, Sanders, and Barlow teach the system of claim 1. McLain does not disclose:
a document module to permit the upload of one or more documents pertaining to the sale of the property or the item.
McLain does disclose formal acceptance of a contract for a real estate agent’s bid to sell the property (McLain: [0053]).
However, Barlow teaches:
a document module to permit the upload of one or more documents pertaining to the property or the item {Barlow: fig 3A, 148 documents upload; [0040] the Service Requestor 12 may upload documents/photos to the service request scope of work to further define, clarify and expound upon the service request expectations, deliverables and requirements}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the document module as taught by Barlow in the bid soliciting system of McLain in order to provide as much information to the parties as is possible to facilitate the statement of work and bidding process (Barlow: [0030]).
Claim 6:
McLain, Sanders, and Barlow teach the system of claim 5. McLain does not disclose:
wherein the document module uploads the one or more documents to a documents interface.
However, Barlow teaches:
wherein the document module uploads the one or more documents to a documents interface {Barlow: fig 3B, 168 SOW review; [0040] Service Requestor 12 may upload documents/photos to the service request scope of work (SOW) to further define, clarify and expound upon the service request expectations, deliverables and requirements; [0053] Step 4 includes a review event summary and details 164, 264 chart as the final entry phase prior to having bids. The user 12 can review the SOW 168, 268}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the document interface as taught by Barlow in the bid soliciting system of McLain in order to provide as much information to the parties as is possible to facilitate the statement of work and bidding process (Barlow: [0030]).
Claim 10:
McLain discloses:
A system for a seller to receive offers and bids to sell an item or property by a third party agent {McLain: fig 1; [0038] seller's request to solicit bids to list a property from one or more brokers.}, the system comprising:
at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network, the at least one user computing device configured to allow a seller to register a property or item for sale by inputting listing data, the user computing device being in operable connection with the user network {McLain: fig 1, 104a-n seller computer and 106m-z broker computer communicating via 108 network};
an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system comprising {McLain: fig 1, 118 memory hosts platform instructions on 102 server communicating via 108 network; [0030] implemented as Java applets}:
a listing module configured to store and transmit structured property or item data to a centralized listing database accessible by agent computing devices, and further configured to perform automated agent matching based on property attributes and agent criteria {McLain: server computer 102 with property profile pages 142a-n and connected to database 124; [0030] each property profile page 142a-142n (i.e., listing module) may comprise a respective user interface for the bid server 128 and may be implemented as Java applets; [0028] allow the seller that has registered a property with the bid server 128. Respective seller's property listing information may be stored by the bid server 128 in the database 124 in accordance with a property number assigned by the bid server 128 based on the respective seller. The bid server 128 is able to recognize the last property number assigned to property of a seller such that the listing bid 128 is able to assign a next property number when the seller requests that bids be solicited on another property. By assigning a property number to the listing information provided by a seller, the bid server 128 is able to allow a broker to access the property listing information and bid to list the property while the seller and the broker each remain anonymous to each other; [0032] broker registration page 132 displayed on a broker computer (e.g., broker computer 106m) in response to the broker's request to register to bid to list an available property. Before granting access to the broker registration page 132, the bid server 128 may first require the person seeking access to provide a user name 302 in FIG. 3 and a password 304 so that the bid server 128 is able to identify the user as a member broker (i.e., a previously registered broker); [0034] broker may input, via keyboard entry on the user interface 300, the one or more zip codes 330 associated with the area 328 in which the broker operates. As discussed below, the bid server 128 is operatively configured to provide a property profile page 142a-142n to a broker based on listing information for the property. In one implementation, the bid server 128 provides the property profile page 142a to the broker when the zip code of the property is determined by the bid server 128 to be within the geographic area 328 identified by the broker. Examiner interprets assigning property numbers to maintain anonymity as structuring data into the database.};
a bid/pitch module configured to permit third-party agents, via agent computing devices, to submit bids or pitches that include commission-based offer terms {McLain: fig 1, broker computers 106m-z accessing web page 144 via browser 112; [0029] properties available page 140 or property profile pages 142a-142n may include a link to a web page 144 (i.e., bid/pitch module) generated by bid server 128 to allow a broker to make a bid on a corresponding property; [0047] bid form 802 also includes a commission or fee field 806 where the broker may identify to the bid server 128 the total commission rate or fee that the broker desires for selling the property. In addition, the bid form 802 may also include a commission paid to buyer's broker field 808 where the broker may identify to the bid server 128 the commission that will be paid to a Buyer's Broker (if any) when the sale of the property is closed; [0033] bid server 128 may use the private broker information 318 to verify, via on-line MLS directory databases or real estate agent databases, whether the broker is an MLS member or licensed real estate agent before allowing the broker to submit a bid to list a property.};
store and index submitted bids based on property identifiers, commission terms {McLain: fig 1, broker computers 106m-z accessing web page 144 via browser 112; [0029] properties available page 140 or property profile pages 142a-142n may include a link to a web page 144 (i.e., bid/pitch module) generated by bid server 128 to allow a broker to make a bid on a corresponding property; [0028] bid server 128 is able to recognize the last property number assigned to property of a seller such that the listing bid 128 is able to assign a next property number when the seller requests that bids be solicited on another property; [0036] bid server 128 then stores the current bidder number in association with the public broker information and the private broker information (Step 218), such that the current bidder number (e.g., bidder number 910 in FIG. 9) represents the broker and may be used by the bid server 128 to refer to the broker when providing a bid from the broker to the seller. Thus, the bid server 128 allows the broker to remain anonymous when providing a bid to the seller; [0049] Each entry in the list of bids 902 may include a bid number 908 and a broker or bidder number 910. The bid number 908 is assigned to the bid by the bid server 128 in order to track the bid in relation to the bidder number (e.g., the broker that submitted the bid). Each entry in the list of bids 902 may also include a property number field 912 that has the property number 608 assigned to the property, the commission or fee 806 submitted by the broker, and the commission paid to buyer's broker 808 as submitted by the broker.};
a bid/pitch interface comprising an interactive graphical display rendered on a seller dashboard, the interface configured to present a plurality of submitted bids in a comparative layout including commission terms, agent identifiers {McLain: fig 1, seller computer 104a-n access bid pages 134a-n via browser 110; fig 9, list of bids 902; [0030] Each seller's bids page 134a-134n (i.e., display module) may comprise a respective user interface for the bid server 128; [0049] If a bid has been received, the bid server 128 provides the received bid to the seller of the property. The seller may cause the bid server 128 to provide a list of bids 902 submitted by one or more brokers for display in a panel 904 of the user interface 900 when a corresponding hyperlink button 906 is actuated by the seller. Each entry in the list of bids 902 may include a bid number 908 and a broker or bidder number 910. The bid number 908 is assigned to the bid by the bid server 128 in order to track the bid in relation to the bidder number (e.g., the broker that submitted the bid). Each entry in the list of bids 902 may also include a property number field 912 that has the property number 608 assigned to the property, the commission or fee 806 submitted by the broker, and the commission paid to buyer's broker 808 as submitted by the broker; [0047] bid form 802 also includes a commission or fee field 806 where the broker may identify to the bid server 128 the total commission rate or fee that the broker desires for selling the property};
a selection interface configured to permit the seller to electronically accept, reject, or shortlist one or more bids, wherein selection triggers a bid status update, notifies the submitting agent {McLain: fig 9, display panel 904 has button “Have Selected Brokers Contact Me”; [0024] Each seller computer 104a-104n and each broker computer 106m-106z may also include a respective messaging tool (e.g., messaging tool 111 and 113), which may be any known e-mail tool or instant messaging tool (i.e., real-time interaction) capable of receiving a message across the network 108; [0053] bid status 912 hyperlink may be selected by the seller to indicate to the bid server 128 that the respective bid has been accepted. Formal acceptance of a contract between the seller and the respective broker may take place before or after the seller identifies that the broker's bid has been accepted. If the bid has not been accepted, the bid server 128 continues processing at step 420 so that other recently registered brokers may also be provided with the listing information of the property. If the bid has been accepted, the bid server 128 alerts brokers that the property is no longer available for bidding before ending processing}.
Although disclosing a bid soliciting system, McLain does not disclose:
submit bids or pitches that include selected marketing services from a predefined set of options;
index submitted bids based on service selections; and
a comparative layout including selected marketing services.
McLain does disclose that the property listing can have requested services for the broker, including advertising services (McLain: fig. 7; [0002]).
However, Sanders teaches:
submit bids or pitches that include selected marketing services from a predefined set of options {Sanders: [0041] The business method and processing system sellers offer preferred deals for select offerings; [0206] providing features for listing of product/service offerings for requisitioning marketing to others; [0217] user will be able to set up automatic agents that will continuously scan the available offers and prompt the owner when an offer matching his/her criteria becomes available in the system};
index submitted bids based on service selections {Sanders: [0202] search process by location/building, industry, keyword, and product/service offering interest to find a list of preferred offerings made available}; and
a comparative layout including selected marketing services {Sanders: fig. 16E demonstrates list of offerings in table fashion; [0202] list of preferred offerings made available}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included marketing services as taught in Sanders in the bid soliciting system of McLain in order to open up a new market at virtually no cost for sellers to engage in neighborly dealings with a new community (Sanders: [0041]).
Neither McLain nor Sanders discloses:
a bid/pitch database connected to the bid/pitch module and configured to store the structured bid data;
store and index submitted bids based on timestamps;
a comparative layout including timestamps; and
wherein selection locks the bid in the system for further transaction processing.
McLain does disclose a website (bid/pitch module) that can receive bids from the broker (third party agent) (McLain: [0029]).
However, Barlow teaches:
a bid/pitch database connected to the bid/pitch module and configured to store the structured bid data {Barlow: [0012] invention may comprise a reverse auction focused on service areas as a business model and accessed via a website on desktop or mobile platform. Customers may post requests for proposals for various services and receive competitive quotes from service providers via the online site; [0030] bid-data-analysis 108 can be performed in the database network 100 such that such data is gathered, compared to direct data 102 and stored for analysis by the users of network 100.};
store and index submitted bids based on timestamps {Barlow: [0071] "Live RA Graph" is a real-time graph displaying the bidding progression. The graph corresponds to the calendar date and timeframe (start and end time) of the event as previously selected on the service request event creation screens. The timeframe of the event runs along the x-axis (horizontal) and the service provider bid amounts run along the y-axis (vertical).};
a comparative layout including timestamps {Barlow: fig 4 shows table with bids and their corresponding dates; [0071] "Live RA Graph" is a real-time graph displaying the bidding progression. The graph corresponds to the calendar date and timeframe (start and end time) of the event as previously selected on the service request event creation screens. The timeframe of the event runs along the x-axis (horizontal) and the service provider bid amounts run along the y-axis (vertical).}; and
wherein selection locks the bid in the system for further transaction processing {Barlow: [0073] users get virtually locked into the system with the value; [0101] dialogue box would accept meta-information pertaining to the file such as desired delivery time, mode of delivery, etc. At the receiving end, the file would be received instantaneously, get routed to server capable of scheduling the service request, send an instant message via a dialogue box back to user confirming receipt of the service request and advising status of the job while being processed.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a bid database to store the bid offers as taught by Barlow in the bid soliciting system of McLain in order to provide as much information to the parties as is possible to facilitate the statement of work and bidding process (Barlow: [0030]).
Claim 11:
McLain, Sanders, and Barlow teach the system of claim 10. McLain does not disclose:
an auto-bid module to receive bid/offer criteria from an agent and to submit an automated bid for the property or the item.
McLain does disclose receiving bid/offer criteria submission from one or more brokers (McLain: [0049]).
However, Barlow teaches:
an auto-bid module to receive bid/offer criteria from an agent and to submit an automated bid for the property or the item {Barlow: fig, 150 Service Provider interface with “Auto Bid” box 202; [0088] the Service Provider may choose to "Auto Bid" at anytime during the live event. The "Auto Bid" functions by the Service Provider placing a "High" and "Low" dollar value which represents the highest and lowest amount the Service Provider is willing to perform work on the service request event. Upon submission, the system will auto-bid on the Service Provider's behalf acting as a stand-in The "Auto-Bid" functionality will take into account the current ranking of the service provider, the min/max bid reduction range, as well as the Service Provider's "high" and "low" bid dollar value.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an automated bid increment interface as taught by Barlow in the bid soliciting system of McLain so that the Service Provider must not be present or monitor continuously online (Barlow: [0088]).
Claim 13:
McLain, Sanders, and Barlow teach the system of claim 11. McLain further discloses:
a property/item database to store property/item information {McLain: [0028] respective seller's property listing information and bids on the property may be stored by the bid server 128 in the database 124}.
Claim 14:
McLain, Sanders, and Barlow teach the system of claim 13. McLain does not disclose:
a document module to permit the upload of one or more documents pertaining to the sale of the property or the item.
McLain does disclose formal acceptance of a contract for a real estate agent’s bid to sell the property (McLain: [0053]).
However, Barlow teaches:
a document module to permit the upload of one or more documents pertaining to the property or the item {Barlow: fig 3A, 148 documents upload; [0040] the Service Requestor 12 may upload documents/photos to the service request scope of work to further define, clarify and expound upon the service request expectations, deliverables and requirements}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the document module as taught by Barlow in the bid soliciting system of McLain in order to provide as much information to the parties as is possible to facilitate the statement of work and bidding process (Barlow: [0030]).
Claim 15:
McLain, Sanders, and Barlow teach the system of claim 14. McLain does not disclose:
wherein the document module uploads the one or more documents to a documents interface.
However, Barlow teaches:
wherein the document module uploads the one or more documents to a documents interface {Barlow: fig 3B, 168 SOW review; [0040] Service Requestor 12 may upload documents/photos to the service request scope of work (SOW) to further define, clarify and expound upon the service request expectations, deliverables and requirements; [0053] Step 4 includes a review event summary and details 164, 264 chart as the final entry phase prior to having bids. The user 12 can review the SOW 168, 268}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the document interface as taught by Barlow in the bid soliciting system of McLain in order to provide as much information to the parties as is possible to facilitate the statement of work and bidding process (Barlow: [0030]).
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLain et. al. (US 20060178978 A1, herein referred to as McLain), in view of Sanders (US 20050049937 A1, herein referred to as Sanders) and Barlow (US 20140279149 A1, herein referred to as Barlow), in further view of Roth et. al. (US 20230081319 A1, herein referred to as Roth).
Claim 7:
McLain, Sanders, and Barlow teach the system of claim 1. McLain does not disclose:
a video module to permit the upload of one or more videos pertaining to the sale of the property or the item.
However, Roth teaches:
a video module to permit the upload of one or more videos pertaining to the sale of the property or the item {Roth: [0022] the construction project video-based bidding, escrow and milestone payment process app may, at 115, enable the contractor, or the like, to record or upload a video bid for completion of the project; [0028] providing the contractor an interface, in the app, to record and/or upload a video proving completion of the milestone}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include uploading video bids as taught by Roth in the soliciting system of McLain, Sanders, and Barlow because more information can be gleaned from a video than from a phone call (Roth: [0033]).
Claim 8:
McLain, Sanders, Barlow, and Roth teach the system of claim 7. McLain does not disclose:
wherein the video module uploads the one or more videos to a bid/pitch interface.
McLain does disclose an interface for a seller to review and select bids (McLain: [0053]).
However, Roth teaches:
wherein the video module uploads the one or more videos to a bid/pitch interface {Roth: fig 2; [0022] The recipient contractors may submit a (video) recorded description of their bid. The construction project video-based bidding, escrow and milestone payment process app may, at 115, enable the contractor, or the like, to record or upload a video bid for completion of the project; [0034] interface 200 for playing a video submission of a proposal by contractor 205 for acceptance by a property owner. The property owner may view the contractor's video submission 210 and review the displayed bid amount 215 and bid description 220. Button 225 may be used to accept the bid from contractor 205.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include uploading video bids as taught by Roth in the soliciting system of McLain because more information can be gleaned from a video than from a phone call (Roth: [0033]).
Claim 9:
McLain, Sanders, Barlow, and Roth teach the system of claim 8. McLain does not disclose:
wherein the video is previously recorded.
However, Roth teaches:
wherein the video is previously recorded {Roth: [0022] The recipient contractors may submit a (video) recorded description of their bid}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include uploading video bids as taught by Roth in the soliciting system of McLain because more information can be gleaned from a video than from a phone call (Roth: [0033]).
Claim 16:
McLain, Sanders, and Barlow teach the system of claim 15. McLain does not disclose:
a video module to permit the upload of one or more videos pertaining to the sale of the property or the item.
However, Roth teaches:
a video module to permit the upload of one or more videos pertaining to the sale of the property or the item {Roth: [0022] the construction project video-based bidding, escrow and milestone payment process app may, at 115, enable the contractor, or the like, to record or upload a video bid for completion of the project; [0028] providing the contractor an interface, in the app, to record and/or upload a video proving completion of the milestone}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include uploading video bids as taught by Roth in the soliciting system of McLain, Sanders, and Barlow because more information can be gleaned from video than phone call (Roth: [0033]).
Claim 17:
McLain, Sanders, Barlow, and Roth teach the system of claim 16. McLain does not disclose:
wherein the video module uploads the one or more videos to a bid/pitch interface.
McLain does disclose an interface for a seller to review and select bids (McLain: [0053]).
However, Roth teaches:
wherein the video module uploads the one or more videos to a bid/pitch interface {Roth: fig 2; [0022] recipient contractors may submit a (video) recorded description of their bid. The app may, at 115, enable the contractor to record or upload a video bid for completion of the project; [0034] interface 200 for playing a video submission of a proposal by contractor 205 for acceptance by a property owner. The property owner may view the contractor's video submission 210 and review the displayed bid amount 215 and bid description 220. Button 225 may be used to accept the bid from contractor 205.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include uploading video bids as taught by Roth in the soliciting system of McLain, Sanders, and Barlow because more information can be gleaned from video than phone call (Roth: [0033]).
Claim 18:
McLain, Sanders, Barlow, and Roth teach the system of claim 17. McLain does not disclose:
wherein the video is previously recorded.
However, Roth teaches:
wherein the video is previously recorded {Roth: [0022] The recipient contractors may submit a (video) recorded description of their bid}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include uploading video bids as taught by Roth in the soliciting system of McLain, Sanders, and Barlow because more information can be gleaned from video than phone call (Roth: [0033]).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. However, in view of the amendments, new grounds of rejection have been applied. These new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
With respect to pages 7-8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Analysis under §101 should focus on whether the claims amount to significantly more than a claim upon an ineligible concept itself, i.e., the claim is properly rejected under §101 if it is directed to an abstract idea. For this reason alone, the rejection under §101 is in error.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP at § 2106 gives us a 2 step framework to determine whether a claimed invention is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Step 1 determines whether the claimed invention falls in one of the four categories of invention – a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition. Then, at Step 2A Prong One, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea. As explained in the MPEP at § 2106.04(a), key concepts were extracted and synthesized in order to identify groupings of abstract ideas. One of those groupings was “certain methods of organizing human activity,” which is defined to include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” which can include certain activity between a person and a computer.
Here, the claims recite machines, so step 1 is satisfied. At Step 2A Prong One, the claims clearly recite an abstract idea because they recite listing an item or property for sale and receiving bids to sell the property, which falls under sales activities, and thus certain methods of organizing human activity. “Sales activities” is a broad phrase that encompasses activities that are related to sales, which includes any steps taken to move customers through a sales process. Receiving bids for an item or property is moving a customer through a sales process of purchasing a property or item. Therefore, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. It does not matter at Step 2A Prong One whether the claims recite additional elements such as an application server or a bid/pitch module connected to a database. As explained above, activity between a person and a computer can be considered abstract. Furthermore, Steps 2A Prong Two and Step 2B are where the additional elements such as the application server and bid/pitch module connected to a database are analyzed to determine eligibility. Therefore, as a whole, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity being applied to a computer.
Another abstract idea grouping is “mental processes,” which is defined to include limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind or with a physical aid, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The MPEP at § 2106.04(a)(2), section III(c) explains that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, then the claim is considered to recite a mental process. The only claims that do not recite mental processes are claims that “do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations.” See MPEP at § 2106.04(a)(2), section III(a).
In this case, the claims recite a mental process because the claim recites observations and judgements. Absent the computing elements, a human can practically list a property or an item for the purposes of finding a third party agent to assist in selling the said item/property, receive bids to sell the property or the item, permit an agent to submit a bid/pitch to sell the property or the item; display a plurality of bids/pitches to permit a user to interact and accept one or more bids, and store offers or bids submitted by the third-party agent with or without a physical aid. Thus, the computing elements recited are merely used to perform the abstract idea in a computer environment.
While the claims do recite additional elements, the recitation of these additional elements in each independent claim are generic and encompass “existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). The presence of additional elements does not negate the presence of an abstract idea simply because the additional elements are performing the claimed functions. Rather, the functionality of the additional elements needs to be evaluated to determine whether a human can perform the functions as claimed. In this case, a human can perform the functions of listing, receiving, displaying, and storing, as claimed. Therefore, as a whole, the claims recite a mental process being applied to a generic computer.
Examiner notes that the claims reciting abstract ideas does not in it of itself make the claims ineligible; rather, the additional elements are evaluated at Step 2A Prong Two to determine whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and thus eligible, and at Step 2B to determine whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and thus eligible. Therefore, the claims do recite certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
With respect to page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the claim “limitations are not ancillary; they are central to how the system operates. They use a particular digital configuration to solve a problem that would be impractical or impossible to perform with pen and paper.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP at §§ 2106.04(d)1 and 2106.05(a) provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, neither Applicant’s claims nor specification provides explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraphs paragraphs [0002]-[0003], [0006], and [0019]-[0020] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward solving abstract problems such as reducing the human effort needed in finding an agent or properties for sale, and selling properties faster. Although the claims include computer technology, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO.
Unlike the precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” but are directed to improving the commercial and mental task of finding a real estate agent for a seller. The claimed process is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while employing generic processor and/or computer components to improve finding a real estate agent for a seller, e.g. commercial and mental process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements.
With respect to pages 8-9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “[t]he inventive concept lies in the technological configuration of modules that are interconnected” because “[t]hese elements are not generic functions merely added to an abstract idea, but instead implement a coordinated computing architecture that transforms how commission-based agent bidding is managed across users.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit vacated a judgment of ineligibility because the district court failed to properly perform the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework (Step 2B of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility guidance) when analyzing a claimed system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network. The BASCOM court agreed that the additional elements were generic computer, network, and Internet components that did not amount to significantly more when considered individually, but explained that the district court erred by failing to recognize that when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user (note that the term "inventive concept" is often used by the courts to describe additional element(s) that amount to significantly more than a judicial exception).
In this case, Applicant’s claims provide no recitation of non-conventional or non-routine arrangement of computer elements or other technology, when additional elements are considered individually and in combination. Reflected in paragraphs [0002]-[0003] and [0019]-[0020] of Applicant’s specification, Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward solving abstract problems such as finding suitable agents to sell a property and selling properties faster. Although the claims include computer technology, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in BASCOM.
In BASCOM, the courts found “the patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content. As explained earlier, prior art filters were either susceptible to hacking and dependent on local hardware and software, or confined to an inflexible onesize-fits-all scheme.” Unlike BASCOM, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement on the arrangement of elements or explain an ordered combination of limitations above and beyond the abstract idea. The instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” but are directed to improving the commercial tasks of selling a property or item. The claimed process is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field via the arrangement of the components, as the claimed process in question is not, for example, improving the arrangement of components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while employing generic computer components to improve the sale of property or items, e.g. mental and commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite non-conventional and non-routine arrangement of systems. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
With respect to page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “[n]o cited reference teaches or suggests this specific arrangement, nor does any prior art implement this structured, bid comparison and workflow automation across a network as described.” However, as discussed in the MPEP at § 2106.05, section I, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility. Therefore, the prior art analysis under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is irrelevant to the subject matter eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant further argues on page 9 that “modules, such as the auto-bid engine, comparative bid matrix, and bid locking workflows, provide functionality improvements that are rooted in the computer technology itself.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In DDR Holdings the court found that the “claimed solution [was] necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The court noted that the problem addressed by the claimed invention was a problem specific to the Internet and/or computer networks – that is the problem of retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine and convention functioning of Internet link protocol, would instantly be transported away from a host's website after “clicking” on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink. Id. The court noted that the DDR Holdings claims did not broadly and generically claim “use of the Internet” to perform an abstract business practice and, unlike Ultramercial, the DDR Holdings claims “specif[ied] how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” Id. Furthermore, the court noted that the claims in DDR Holdings did not “recite a commonplace business method aimed at processing business information, applying a known business process to the particular technological environment of the Internet, or creating or altering contractual relations using generic computer functions and conventional network operations.” Id.
In contrast to the claims in DDR Holdings, the claims at issue are not “necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Unlike the claims in DDR Holdings, the present claims recite functions that could be performed outside of the Internet or computing networks. For example, absent the computing components recited in the claims, a human can create property listings, organize the property listings based on their information, receive bids from third party agents, validate completeness of bids, provide the list of bids to a seller, and help a seller respond to bids. The present claims merely employ computing elements to facilitate the implementation of the abstract idea. As such, unlike DDR Holdings, the claims do “recite a commonplace business method aimed at processing business information, applying a known business process to the particular technological environment of the Internet, or creating or altering contractual relations using generic computer functions and conventional network operations.”
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. However, in view of the amendments, new grounds of rejection have been applied. These new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
With respect to pages 9-12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the art to combine McLain's real estate listing interface, Sanders's service matching platform, Barlow's auction interface, and Roth's construction project video bidding system to arrive at a system that enables a seller to receive, compare, and respond to structured agent bids with selectable services and commission terms. The technologies operate in different domains, address different coordination problems, and lack the required interoperability to support the claimed functionality.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, it is not necessary for a reference, either on its own or in combination, to recognize the specific advantages of Applicant’s invention in order to be considered prior art. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant (see MPEP §2144, section IV).
As explained above on pages 16-42, the combination of McLain, Sanders, and Barlow teach the recited claim limitations for claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-11, and 13-15, and the combination of McLain, Sanders, Barlow, and Roth teach the recited claim limitations for claims 7-9 and 16-18. Each of the references encompass making bids on offerings and therefore are in the same field of endeavor. None of the reference individually disclose the recited claim limitations, but their combination teaches the claims in their entirety. Modifying McLain to include the elements of Sanders would be obvious because it would open up a new market at virtually no cost for sellers to engage in neighborly dealings with a new community (Sanders: [0041]), and modifying McLain to include the elements of Barlow would be obvious because it would provide as much information to the parties as is possible to facilitate the statement of work and bidding process (Barlow: [0030]). It would have been obvious to further modify the combination of McLain, Sanders, and Barlow to include the elements of Roth because more information can be gleaned from a video than phone call (Roth: [0033]). Therefore, the cited prior art in combination teaches each element of the claims, and it would have been obvious to make the combination to one of ordinary skill in the art because the references are in the same field of endeavor and each provide some teaching, suggestion, and motivation to combine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rothwell-Reese et. al. (US 20200134710 A1) was used to understand other methods for comparing multiple bids.
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 KATHERINE A BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-5820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 11am-7pm EST.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/KATHERINE A BARLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 3/4/2026