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 the Claims
Claims 1-24 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claim 24 is new.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, and 18-20 are amended.
Claims 1-24 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed Dec. 16, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, under Step 2A Prong 1, Applicant asserts the claims do not recite any of the enumerated abstract ideas like advertising because the claims do not relate to any kind of advertisement display, citing Ultramercial. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because receiving the information about a parcel of land is advertising (i.e., receiving information on something that is for sale). Further, Examiner notes the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification and Fig. 1 of the present Specification is an advertisement. Thus, Examiner finds the claims when read in light of the Specification relate to advertising.
Second, under Step 2A Prong 1, Applicant asserts the claims at most only involve a judicial exception and do not recite a judicial exception, citing the August 2025 Memorandum relating to 101 rejections. Again, Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because receiving the information about a parcel of land is advertising (i.e., receiving information on something that is for sale) and Fig. 1 of the present Specification is an advertisement. Thus, Examiner finds the claims when read in light of the Specification relate to advertising.
Third, under Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant asserts the claims reflect an improvement, because QR codes require use of a smartphone because but the present claims do not require a smartphone because the user can remember the codes, citing Ex parte Desjardins. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a) (discussing Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG). That is, Examiner finds the codes being easy to remember does not reflect an improvement in technology because the codes being easy to remember reflects an improvement in the abstract idea (i.e., a better way to advertise real estate and the like).
Fourth, Applicant asserts the claims reflect a practical application because the user can enter the codes to retrieve information. Examiner respectfully does not find this as assertion persuasive because these steps are recited too broadly and generally to be more than mere instructions to use software to retrieve information.
Fifth, under step 2B, Applicant asserts the claims reflect an unconventional technical solution to a technical problem. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because it is not clear how the use of QR codes reflects an technical problem. That is, it is not clear how the existence of difference techniques for transmitting data reflects a problem. Again, Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Examiner finds the codes being easy to remember does not reflect an improvement in technology because the codes being easy to remember reflects an improvement in the abstract idea (i.e., a better way to advertise real estate and the like).
Sixth, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the amendments make clear the claims are sending data representations that result in easier and more coinvent searching. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the sending and receiving of data in the claims is recited too broadly and generally to be more than ordinary computer functions.
Seventh, Examiner asserts the claims reflect an improvement because the claimed data represents a standardization, citing Example 42. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Example 42 was found eligible in part based on the claimed step of converting non-standard information into a standardized format but the present claims do not recite a conversion step.
Accordingly, the 101 rejections are maintained. Please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts claimed the alphanumeric codes are not nonfunctional descriptive material, see MPEP 2111.05. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the previous Office Action did not find alphanumeric codes are nonfunctional descriptive material. The previous Office Action found the limitations specifying which characters are letters and numbers are nonfunctional descriptive material. That is, the present Application’s teaching of using four characters of alternating letters and numbers (e.g., A1C8) is nonfunctional descriptive material because it is directed to conveying meaning to a human reader because the Specification explicitly explains the four characters of alternating letters and numbers are easier for people to remember, see e.g. ¶[10] of the Specification as filed.
Second, Applicant asserts one of ordinary skill would not combine Bashardoost with Brajer because Bashardoost relates to advertising whereas Brajer relates to a knowledge interpretations subsystem. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because both Bashardoost and Brajer are directed towards advertising real estate and Examiner finds no reason the advertising system of Bashardoost could not be combined with the computer system of Brajer especially because Bashardoost explicitly suggests implementing its teachings on a computing system, ¶[0023]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Third, Applicant asserts the cited refences do not teach a uniquely associated code because ¶¶[0006], [0008] of Bashardoost are in the background section. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Examiner finds no reason why the background section of Bashardoost are not a part of the teachings of Bashardoost.
Fourth, Applicant asserts various limitations in claims 2, 4, 8, and 13 were improperly treated as nonfunctional descriptive material. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because all the various limitations are directed to conveying meaning to a human reader.
Similarly, Applicant asserts the property being under construction functionally relates to the invention because the property being under construction impacts the value of the property. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the claims do not use or involve the value of the properties.
Fifth, Applicant asserts Bashardoost does not teach verifying the code is currently in use in claim 14. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Bashardoost explicitly states determining if the code has been used for other listings which would mean the code is currently in use (i.e., in use with other listings).
Sixth, Applicant asserts the cited references do not teach the absence of a QR code simply because references do not discuss using a QR code, citing IBM Corp v. Iancu. First, Examiner respectfully does not find Applicant’s assertion persuasive regarding IBM Corp v. Iancu persuasive because IBM Corp v. Iancu is nonprecedential and because the claimed invention in IBM Corp v. Iancu is too distinct from the claimed invention in the present application to be persuasive. Second, Examiner respectfully does not find Applicant’s assertion persuasive because Bashardoost teaches using alphanumeric codes, e.g. Abstract, and accordingly Examiner finds there would be no reason for the embodiments of Bashardoost to incorporate QR codes.
Seventh, Applicant asserts the various claimed tables functionally relate to the invention because the data is functionally relevant to purchases of that property. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the claims do not use or involve the purchase of properties.
Eighth, Applicant asserts the Bashardoost does not teach tables because Bashardoost only teaches forms with standardized fields. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Examiner a form with standardized fields is within the scope of a table because the form would have rows and columns (e.g., the column of data labels and the column of fields for the data).
Ninth, Applicant asserts Bashardoost does not teach a property being under construction. Similarly, Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Examiner finds the status of the properties is nonfunctional descriptive material.
Tenth, Applicant again asserts the alphanumeric codes are not nonfunctional descriptive material, citing IOENGINE. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the previous Office Action did not find alphanumeric codes are nonfunctional descriptive material. The previous Office Action found the limitations specifying which characters are letters and numbers are nonfunctional descriptive material. That is, the present Application’s teaching of using four characters of alternating letters and numbers (e.g., A1C8) is nonfunctional descriptive material because it is directed to conveying meaning to a human reader because the Specification explicitly explains the four characters of alternating letters and numbers are easier for people to remember, see e.g. ¶[10] of the Specification as filed.
Eleventh, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because Angevine does not teach alphanumeric codes. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Angevine was note relied on to teach alphanumeric codes.
Accordingly, the 103 rejections are maintained. Please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-10 and 24 are directed to a machine; and claims 11-23 are directed to a process. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claim 1
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations, the operations comprising:
transmitting a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to permit a user to enter information relating to a parcel of real property, and initiate a search of a database to find a property of interest;
receiving the information relating to the parcel of real property: generating a first alphanumeric code, associating the first alphanumeric code with the parcel of real property, and storing the first alphanumeric code and the information in the database; receiving the user-initiated search of the database:
receiving a second alphanumeric code associated with the property of interest, sending a representation of the second alphanumeric code to a server computer device so the server computing device can retrieve, from the database, property information related to the property of interest, receiving, from the server compute device, the property information related to the property of interest; and transmitting the property information to the user,
wherein the first alphanumeric code and the second alphanumeric code each comprises at least four characters, wherein both (i) a first character in the at least four characters and (ii) a third character in the at least four characters are alphabetical letters, and wherein both (i) a second character in the at least four characters and (ii) a fourth character in the at least four characters are numerical digits.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) because these limitations encompass gathering data about real estate and organizing it for the purposes of selling the real estate (i.e., advertising); see also Fig. 1 of the present Specification showing the advertisement. Claims that encompass commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations, the operations comprising:
transmitting a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to permit a user to enter information relating to a parcel of real property, and initiate a search of a database to find a property of interest;
receiving the information relating to the parcel of real property: generating a first alphanumeric code, associating the first alphanumeric code with the parcel of real property, and storing the first alphanumeric code and the information in the database; receiving the user-initiated search of the database:
receiving a second alphanumeric code associated with the property of interest, sending a representation of the second alphanumeric code to a server computer device so the server computing device can retrieve, from the database, property information related to the property of interest, receiving, from the server compute device, the property information related to the property of interest; and transmitting the property information to the user,
wherein the first alphanumeric code and the second alphanumeric code each comprises at least four characters, wherein both (i) a first character in the at least four characters and (ii) a third character in the at least four characters are alphabetical letters, and wherein both (i) a second character in the at least four characters and (ii) a fourth character in the at least four characters are numerical digits.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a server computer device, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second the additional elements of: transmitting a GUI; storing the alphanumeric code and information; receiving the alphanumeric code and the information; receiving the user-initiated search; receiving a second alphanumeric code; sending a representation of the second alphanumeric code, and transmitting the property information, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements all encompass generic computer functions of sending, receiving, and storing data (e.g. receiving user input and sending stored data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of initiating a search of a database, and the server computing device retrieving, from the database, property information related to the property of interest, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements are only using software to tailor information and provide it to a user (i.e., are only using software to search a database), which is not more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)). Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 3
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 3 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations, the operations comprising:
transmitting a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to permit a user to enter; property information relating to a parcel of real property, personal information relating to the user, and the user's billing information,
receiving the property information relating to the parcel of real property, the personal information, and the user's billing information;
generating an account for the user, the account comprising the property information, the personal information, and the billing information;
generating an alphanumeric code;
associating the alphanumeric code with the parcel of real property;
storing the alphanumeric code and the property information in a database, stored on a server computing device; and
after entry of the alpha numeric code, retrieving the stored property information by:
sending a representation of the alphanumeric code to the server computing device, and
receiving the stored property information in response to the sending the representation of the alphanumeric code,
wherein the alphanumeric code has four characters, wherein both (i) the first character in the four characters and (ii) the third character in the four characters are alphabetical letters, and wherein both (i) the second character in the four characters and (ii) the fourth character in the four characters are numerical digits.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) because these limitations encompass gathering data about a user and real estate and organizing it for the purposes of selling the real estate (i.e., advertising); see also Fig. 1 of the present Specification showing the advertisement. Claims that encompass commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 3 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 3 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations, the operations comprising:
transmitting a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to permit a user to enter; property information relating to a parcel of real property, personal information relating to the user, and the user's billing information,
receiving the property information relating to the parcel of real property, the personal information, and the user's billing information;
generating an account for the user, the account comprising the property information, the personal information, and the billing information;
generating an alphanumeric code;
associating the alphanumeric code with the parcel of real property;
storing the alphanumeric code and the property information in a database, stored on a server computing device; and
after entry of the alpha numeric code, retrieving the stored property information by:
sending a representation of the alphanumeric code to the server computing device, and
receiving the stored property information in response to the sending the representation of the alphanumeric code,
wherein the alphanumeric code has four characters, wherein both (i) the first character in the four characters and (ii) the third character in the four characters are alphabetical letters, and wherein both (i) the second character in the four characters and (ii) the fourth character in the four characters are numerical digits.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and the database stored on a server computing device, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second, the additional elements of: transmitting a GUI; the user entering the information, storing the alphanumeric code and information, sending a representation of the alphanumeric code and receiving the stored property information when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements all encompass generic computer functions of sending, receiving, and storing data (e.g. receiving user input and sending stored data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of after entry of the alpha numeric code, retrieving the stored property information, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements are only using software to tailor information and provide it to a user (i.e., are only using software to search a database), which is not more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)). Claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 7
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 7 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations, the operations comprising:
transmitting a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to permit a user to search a database stored on a server computing device, the database comprising a plurality of alphanumeric codes and information on a plurality of parcels of real property, wherein each of the plurality of alphanumeric codes is uniquely associated with one of the plurality of parcels of real property;
receiving a first alphanumeric code entered by the user;
sending a representation of the first alphanumeric code to the server computing device so that the server computing device can retrieve information on a first parcel of property in the plurality of parcels that is associated with the first alphanumeric code;
receiving the information on the first parcel of real property
displaying, by the GUI, the information on the first parcel of real property to the user,
wherein each alphanumeric code in the plurality of alphanumeric codes has four characters, wherein both (i) the first character in the four characters and (ii) the third character in the four characters are alphabetical letters, and wherein both (i) the second character in the four characters and (ii) the fourth character in the four characters are numerical digits.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) because these limitations encompass organizing data about real estate and for the purposes of selling the real estate (i.e., advertising); see also Fig. 1 of the present Specification showing the advertisement. Claims that encompass commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 7 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations, the operations comprising:
transmitting a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to permit a user to search a database stored on a server computing device, the database comprising a plurality of alphanumeric codes and information on a plurality of parcels of real property, wherein each of the plurality of alphanumeric codes is uniquely associated with one of the plurality of parcels of real property;
receiving a first alphanumeric code entered by the user;
sending a representation of the first alphanumeric code to the server computing device so that the server computing device can retrieve information on a first parcel of property in the plurality of parcels that is associated with the first alphanumeric code;
receiving the information on the first parcel of real property
displaying, by the GUI, the information on the first parcel of real property to the user,
wherein each alphanumeric code in the plurality of alphanumeric codes has four characters, wherein both (i) the first character in the four characters and (ii) the third character in the four characters are alphabetical letters, and wherein both (i) the second character in the four characters and (ii) the fourth character in the four characters are numerical digits.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and the database stored on a server computing device, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Second the additional elements of: transmitting a GUI; the database comprising the alphanumeric code and information; receiving the alphanumeric code; receiving the first parcel information and displaying the information, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements all encompass generic computer functions of sending, receiving, and storing data (e.g. receiving and sending user input and displaying stored data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of sending a representation of the first alphanumeric code to the server computing device so that the server computing device can retrieve information on a first parcel, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements are only using software to tailor information and provide it to a user (i.e., are only using software to search a database), which is not more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)). Claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 11
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 11 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…displaying a visual display comprising:
an alphanumeric code having a first through a fourth character, the first and the third characters being alphabetical letters, and the second and the fourth characters being numerical digits,
one or more products or services associated with the alphanumeric code,
generating, by at least one processor, a graphical user interface (GUI) that prompts a user to enter the alphanumeric code;
transmitting, by the at least one processor, the GUI to the user;
receiving, by the at least one processor, the alphanumeric code;
sending, by the at least on processor, a representation of the alphanumeric code to a server computing device containing a database of information relating to the one or more products or services associated with the alphanumeric code;
receiving, by the at least one processor, the information; and
transmitting, by the at least one processor, the information to the user.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) because these limitations encompass organizing data about products and services for the purposes of selling it (i.e., advertising); see also Fig. 1 of the present Specification showing the advertisement. Claims that encompass commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 11 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…displaying a visual display comprising:
an alphanumeric code having a first through a fourth character, the first and the third characters being alphabetical letters, and the second and the fourth characters being numerical digits,
one or more products or services associated with the alphanumeric code,
generating, by at least one processor, a graphical user interface (GUI) that prompts a user to enter the alphanumeric code;
transmitting, by the at least one processor, the GUI to the user;
receiving, by the at least one processor, the alphanumeric code;
sending, by the at least on processor, a representation of the alphanumeric code to a server computing device containing a database of information relating to the one or more products or services associated with the alphanumeric code;
receiving, by the at least one processor, the information; and
transmitting, by the at least one processor, the information to the user.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of displaying a visual display and a processor: generating and transmitting GUI for a user to enter the alphanumeric code; receiving the alphanumeric code; and transmitting the information, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements all encompass generic computer functions of sending, receiving, and storing data (e.g. receiving user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Second, the additional elements of sending, by the at least on processor, a representation of the alphanumeric code to a server computing device containing a database of information and receiving, by the at least one processor, the information, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements are only using software to tailor information and provide it to a user (i.e., are only using software to search a database), which is not more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)). Claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 13 further specifies the data being stored, etc. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, still only encompass a generic computer function and as such do not reflect a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 10, and 12 recite the property is under construction. Examiner finds these limitations do not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the status of the property the information is being collected for does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely claiming the status of the property does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05.
Claims 14 and 16 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because generating, verifying, and assigning the code is a part of the abstract idea (i.e., organizing data about products or services for the purposes of selling it).
Claims 14 and 16 further recite the additional elements of transmitting a prompt. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements all encompass generic computer functions of sending data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 15 recite the visual display does not have a QR code. This limitation does not affect the eligibility analysis because the absence of a feature does not reflect a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 17-20 recite the additional elements of generating various tables. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements all encompass generic computer functions of storing data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 21 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because determining a parcel that is within a distance is a part of the abstract idea (i.e., organizing products or services for the purposes of selling it).
Claim 21 further recites the additional of various mapping technologies. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (mapping technologies) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 22 and 23 further recite the additional elements of displaying location information for the client and the property using WebGL. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (mapping technologies and WebGL) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claim 24 recite the additional elements of the alphanumeric code and the information being scripts. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic software) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashardoost et al, US Pub. No. 2007/0233662, herein referred to as “Bashardoost” in view of Brajer et al, US Pub. No. 2016/0048874, herein referred to as “Brajer”.
Regarding claim 1 Bashardoost teaches:
configured to permit a user to enter information relating to a parcel of real property (database stores information on listings, ¶¶[0023], [0028] and listings include real estate, ¶¶[0018], [0037])
and initiate a search of a database to find a property of interest (allows user to search database of listings, ¶[0038]);
receiving the information relating to the parcel of real property (database stores information on listings, ¶¶[0023], [0028]):
generating a first alphanumeric code, associating the first alphanumeric code with the parcel of real property (automatically assign code to new listing, ¶[0029]),
and storing the first alphanumeric code and the information in the database (listing information is associated with alphanumeric identifying code in database, ¶[0023]);
receiving the user-initiated search of the database (consumer transmits a request for a listing, ¶[0034]; see also ¶[0038] discussing searching the database):
receiving a second alphanumeric code associated with the property of interest (consumer transmits a request for a listing including the code, ¶[0034]),
sending a representation of the second alphanumeric code to a server computing device (consumer transmits a request for a listing including the code, ¶[0034]; see also ¶[0014] discussing transmitting the information over the internet)
so that the server computing device can retrieve, from the database, property information related to the periptery of interest (searches the database, ¶[0038])
receiving, from the server computing device, the property information related to the property of interest (system transmits listing to consumer, ¶[0034]),
wherein the first alphanumeric code and the second alphanumeric code each comprises at least four characters, wherein both (i) a first character in the at least four characters and (ii) a third character in the at least four characters are alphabetical letters, and wherein both (i) a second character in the at least four characters and (ii) a fourth character in the at least four characters are numerical digits (code is an alphanumeric string, e.g., ¶¶[0011], [0024]. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying which characters are letters and numbers do not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type or order of the characters being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling the type and order of the characters does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05. That is, the order and type of characters being used is only directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader).
However Bashardoost does not teach but Brajer does teach:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations, the operations comprising (computer readable medium is encoded with executable instructions, e.g., ¶[0084]):
transmitting a graphical user interface (GUI) (transmits various webpages, e.g., Figs. 10-12 and ¶¶[0125], [0151]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the computer system of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests implementing its teachings on a computing system, ¶[0023]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Brajer further teaches:
wherein the information comprises at least one of a property description and an address (property criteria includes number of bedrooms and/or bathrooms, square footage, etc., and address, ¶[0155] and Fig. 11. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying what data is stored, etc. does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type information being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the real estate data of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests using its teachings for real estate listings, ¶[0018]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 3 Bashardoost teaches:
configured to permit a user to enter: property information relating to a parcel of real property (database stores information on listings, ¶¶[0023], [0028] and listings include real estate, ¶¶[0018], [0037]),
personal information relating to the user, and the user's billing information (listing information includes advertiser’s name and contact information, ¶[0023]. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying what data is stored, etc. does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type information being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05),
receiving the property information relating to the parcel of real property, the personal information, and the user's billing information (database stores information on listings, ¶¶[0023], [0028]. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying what data is stored, etc. does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type information being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05):
the account comprising the property information, the personal information, and the billing information database stores information on listings, ¶¶[0023], [0028]. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying what data is stored, etc. does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type information being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05);
generating an alphanumeric code; associating the alphanumeric code with the parcel of real property (automatically assigns code to new listing, ¶[0029]);
storing the alphanumeric code and the property information in a database stored on a server computing device (listing information is associated with alphanumeric identifying code in database, ¶[0023]; see also ¶[0014] discussing transmitting the information over the internet),
and, after entry of the alphanumeric code (consumer transmits a request for a listing including the code, ¶[0034]),
retrieving the stored property information by sending a representation of the alphanumeric code to the server computing device (consumer transmits a request for a listing including the code, ¶[0034], searches the database, ¶[0038], and transmits listing to consumer, ¶[0034]; see also ¶[0014] discussing transmitting the information over the internet)
and receiving the stored property information in response to the sending the representation of the alphameric code (system transmits listing to consumer, ¶[0034]),
wherein the alphanumeric code has four characters, wherein both (i) the first character in the four characters and (ii) the third character in the four characters are alphabetical letters, and wherein both (i) the second character in the four characters and (ii) the fourth character in the four characters are numerical digits (code is an alphanumeric string, e.g., ¶¶[0011], [0024]. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying which characters are letters and numbers do not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type or order of the characters being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling the type and order of the characters does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05. That is, the order and type of characters being used is only directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader).
However Bashardoost does not teach but Brajer does teach:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations, the operations comprising (computer readable medium is encoded with executable instructions, e.g., ¶[0084]):
transmitting a graphical user interface (GUI) (transmits various webpages, e.g., Figs. 10-12 and ¶¶[0125], [0151]);
generating an account for the user (users register for the system, ¶[0197] and Fig. 12; see also ;
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the computer system of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests implementing its teachings on a computing system, ¶[0023]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Brajer further teaches:
wherein the information comprises at least one of a property description, an address (property criteria includes number of bedrooms and/or bathrooms, square footage, etc., and address, ¶[0155] and Fig. 11. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying what data is stored, etc. does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type information being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05),
and media associated with the parcel of real property (audiovisual representation of the property, ¶¶[0083], [0104]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the real estate data of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests using its teachings for real estate listings, ¶[0018]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and Brajer further teaches:
wherein the media comprises at least one of one or more photographs and one or more videos (video of the property, ¶¶[0083], [0104]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the real estate data of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests using its teachings for real estate listings, ¶[0018]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and does not explicitly teach:
wherein the parcel of real property is under construction.
Nevertheless, claim 6 is obvious in light of the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer because Examiner finds the status of the property the information is being collected for does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely claiming the status of the property does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05.
Regarding claim 7 Bashardoost teaches:
configured to permit a user to search a database stored on a server computing device (allows user to search database of listings, ¶[0038]; see also ¶[0014] discussing transmitting information over the internet),
the database comprising a plurality of alphanumeric codes and information on a plurality of parcels of real property (stores information on listings and associated alphanumeric codes, ¶¶[0023]-[0024], and listings include real estate, ¶¶[0018], [0037])
wherein each of the plurality of alphanumeric codes is uniquely associated with one of the plurality of parcels of real property (filters listings based on user data to determine relevant listing, ¶[0037]; see also ¶¶[0006]-[0008] discussing unique identifiers);
receiving a first alphanumeric code entered by the user (consumer transmits a request for a listing including the code, ¶[0034]);
sending a representation of the first alphanumeric code to the server computing device (consumer transmits a request for a listing including the code, ¶[0034]),
so that the server computing device can retrieve information on a first parcel of property in the plurality of parcels that is associated with the first alphanumeric code (searches the database, ¶[0038]);
receiving the information on the first parcel of real property system transmits listing to consumer, ¶[0034]);
and wherein each alphanumeric code in the plurality of alphanumeric codes has four characters, wherein both (i) the first character in the four characters and (ii) the third character in the four characters are alphabetical letters, and wherein both (i) the second character in the four characters and (ii) the fourth character in the four characters are numerical digits (code is an alphanumeric string, e.g., ¶¶[0011], [0024]. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying which characters are letters and numbers do not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type or order of the characters being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling the type and order of the characters does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05. That is, the order and type of characters being used is only directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader).
However Bashardoost does not teach but Brajer does teach:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations, the operations comprising (computer readable medium is encoded with executable instructions, e.g., ¶[0084]):
transmitting a graphical user interface (GUI) (transmits various webpages, e.g., Figs. 10-12 and ¶¶[0125], [0151]);
displaying, by the GUI, the information on the first parcel of real property to the user (displays property data, e.g., ¶[0149])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the computer system of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests implementing its teachings on a computing system, ¶[0023]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 7 and Brajer further teaches:
wherein the information comprises at least one of a property description, an address (property criteria includes number of bedrooms and/or bathrooms, square footage, etc., and address, ¶[0155] and Fig. 11. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying what data is stored, etc. does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type information being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05),
and media associated with the parcel of real property (audiovisual representation of the property, ¶¶[0083], [0104]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the real estate data of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests using its teachings for real estate listings, ¶[0018]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and Brajer further teaches:
wherein the media comprises at least one of one or more photographs and one or more videos (video of the property, ¶¶[0083], [0104]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the real estate data of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests using its teachings for real estate listings, ¶[0018]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and does not explicitly teach:
wherein the parcel of real property is under construction.
Nevertheless, claim 10 is obvious in light of the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer because Examiner finds the status of the property the information is being collected for does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely claiming the status of the property does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05.
Regarding claim 11 Bashardoost teaches:
an alphanumeric code having a first through a fourth character, the first and the third characters being alphabetical letters, and the second and the fourth characters being numerical digits (code is an alphanumeric string, e.g., ¶¶[0011], [0024]. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying which characters are letters and numbers do not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type or order of the characters being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling the type and order of the characters does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05. That is, the order and type of characters being used is only directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader).
one or more products or services associated with the alphanumeric code (stores information on listings and associated alphanumeric codes, ¶¶[0023]-[0024], and listings include various goods or services, ¶¶[0018], [0037])
that prompts a user to enter the alphanumeric code (consumer transmits a request for a listing including the code, ¶[0034]);
receiving, by the at least one processor, the alphanumeric code (consumer transmits a request for a listing including the code, ¶[0034]);
sending, by the at least one processor, a representation of the alphanumeric code to a server computing device containing a database of information relating to the one or more products of services associated with the alphanumeric code (consumer transmits a request for a listing including the code, ¶[0034], and system searches the database, ¶[0038]); see also ¶[0014] discussing transmitting the information over the internet; and ¶[0015] noting systems stores information on products like automobiles, appliances, etc.)
receiving, by the at least one processor, the information; and transmitting, by the at least one processor, the information to the user (system transmits listing to consumer, ¶[0034]; see also ¶[0038] discussing searching the database).
However Bashardoost does not teach but Brajer does teach:
displaying a visual display comprising (displays various webpages, e.g., ¶¶[0177], [0179]):
generating, by at least one processor, a graphical user interface (GUI); transmitting, by the at least one processor, the GUI to the user (transmits various webpages, e.g., Figs. 10-12 and ¶¶[0125], [0151]; see also e.g., ¶[0084] discussing processors).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the computer system of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests implementing its teachings on a computing system, ¶[0023]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and does not explicitly teach:
wherein the parcel of real property is under construction.
Nevertheless, claim 12 is obvious in light of the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer because Examiner finds the status of the property the information is being collected for does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely claiming the status of the property does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Brajer further teaches:
wherein the information comprises at least one of a property description, an address (property criteria includes number of bedrooms and/or bathrooms, square footage, etc., and address, ¶[0155] and Fig. 11. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying what data is stored, etc. does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type information being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05),
one or more photographs of the parcel of real property, and one or more videos of the parcel of real property (audiovisual representation of the property, ¶¶[0083], [0104]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the real estate data of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests using its teachings for real estate listings, ¶[0018]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and Bashardoost further teaches:
as the alphanumeric code, either (i) a custom code generated by the user, or (ii) a randomly generated code (automatically assigns the code or advertiser enters code, ¶[0029]);
when the user chooses to generate the custom code: transmitting, by the at least one processor, a prompt for the user to input the custom code (prompts user to enter code, ¶[0029]);
verifying, by the at least one processor, that the custom code is neither currently in use nor has been used for a predetermined past portion of time; verifying, by the at least one processor, that the custom code conforms to one or more formatting requirements (informs user of acceptable formats and system evaluates whether chose code is acceptable, ¶[0029]);
assigning, by the at least one processor, the custom code to the user (assigns acceptable code, ¶[0030]);
when the user chooses the randomly generated code: generating, by the at least one processor, the randomly generated code; and assigning, by the at least one processor, the randomly generated code to the user (automatically assigns the code, ¶[0029]).
However Bashardoost does not teach but Brajer does teach:
transmitting, by the at least one processor, a prompt for the user to choose (users enter preferences, e.g., ¶[0182])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the computer system of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests implementing its teachings on a computing system, ¶[0023]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and does not explicitly teach:
wherein the visual display does not have a quick response (QR) code.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to not use a QR because it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of a reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom, see MPEP 2144.01. That is, Bashardoost teaches using the alphanumeric codes, e.g., Abstract. One skilled in the art would infer that a QR code would not be needed because the alphanumeric codes are being used.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and Bashardoost further teaches:
prompting, by the at least one processor, an individual to enter the information relating to the one or more products or services into the database (advertiser inputs information, ¶[0027]);
and generating, by the at least one processor, the alphanumeric code (assigns code to new listing, ¶¶[0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and Bashardoost further teaches:
generating a plurality of tables comprising a property types table, a property table, a customer table, a security questions table, and an invoice table (generates tables of information, e.g., Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0028]-[0029]. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying what data is stored, etc. does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type information being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Bashardoost further teaches:
wherein the property types table comprises representations of data on types of real property in which the user is interested, and wherein the property table comprises the information and the alphanumeric code (listing information is associated with alphanumeric identifying code in database, ¶[0023]. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying what data is stored, etc. does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type information being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 18 and Bashardoost further teaches:
wherein the customer table comprises representations of data relating to the user, the representations of data relating to at least one of a name of the user, a residential address of the user, a telephone number of the user, and an e-mail address of the user, and wherein the security questions table comprises one or more security questions provided by the user and one or more answers to the one or more security questions (receives information on user, e.g., Fig. 2. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying what data is stored, etc. does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type information being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and Bashardoost further teaches:
wherein the invoice table comprises representations of billing data, the representations of billing data relating to at least one of a credit card number of the user, a billing address of the user, one or more billing amounts, and one or more dates corresponding to the one or more billing amounts (receives information on user, e.g., Fig. 2. Please note, Examiner finds the limitations specifying what data is stored, etc. does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because the type information being collected and used does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Bashardoost further teaches:
determining a particular location of a client computing device using at least one of a cellular network, one or more wireless networks, and global positioning system (GPS) hardware to determine latitude and longitude coordinates of the client computing device (obtains GPS data from user device, ¶[0037]
and determining at least one parcel of real property that is within a particular distance from the latitude and longitude coordinates of the client computing device (filters listings based on location of the user, ¶¶[0037]).
However the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer does not explicitly teach:
at least one parcel of real property that is under construction.
Nevertheless, claim 21 is obvious in light of the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer because Examiner finds the status of the property the information is being collected for does not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely claiming the status of the property does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashardoost and Brajer further in view of Angevine et al, US Pub. No. 2022/0207846, herein referred to as “Angevine”.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 21 and Brajer further teaches:
displaying an indicator of the particular location of the client computing device and at least one graphical user interface element that represents each of the at least one parcel of real property on a map (display properties and user location, Fig. 11 and ¶¶[0194]-[0195])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the real estate data of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests using its teachings for real estate listings, ¶[0018]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
However the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer does not teach but Angevine does teach
that represents each of the at least one parcel of real property on a map using WebGL (maps geographic area with WebGL, ¶¶[0011], [0112]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost and Brajer with WebGL as taught by Angevine because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have modified the mapping of Bashardoost and Brajer to use WebGL as taught by Angevine for situations where using WebGL is desirable (e.g., when accessibility and cross-platform compatibility are desired).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Bashardoost, Brajer and Angevine teaches all the limitations of claim 22 and Brajer further teaches:
wherein the at least one graphical user interface element that represents each of the at least one parcel of real property comprises the alphanumeric code (displays property data, e.g., ¶[0167]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost with the real estate data of Brajer because Bashardoost explicitly suggests using its teachings for real estate listings, ¶[0018]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Bashardoost and Brajer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Angevine teach:
wherein both the first alphanumeric code and the information on the first parcel of real property is comprised in a data structure submitted as one or more scripts to the database (sues JavaScript, e.g., ¶¶[0214], [0216]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising system of Bashardoost and Brajer with JavaScript as taught by Angevine because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have modified the processes of Bashardoost and Brajer to use JavaScript as taught by Angevine for situations where using JavaScript is desirable (e.g., when cross browser compatibility is desired).
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 BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626