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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 9/11/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action. As of the date of this office action, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
3. On Remarks page 7, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea as the claims recite limitations of “a viewer portal to operate on a plurality of purchaser mobile devices, to broadcast the livestream walkthrough to the viewer portal and to provide an interactive computing module on the plurality of purchaser mobile devices as recited in claim 1.” It is noted that the idea of scheduling and performing a walk through or tour of a property like a home for sale or rent between a listing agent like a realtor and a buyer or buyers, is an abstract idea in that it can fall into either a certain method of organizing human activity like commercial or legal interaction including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors or alternatively is a mental processes.
The additional elements that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by “ a viewer portal”, “mobile devices”, “livestream”, or “interactive computing modules” as argued merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as detailed in the 101 rejection below.
It is further noted a mental process or certain method or organizing human activity can require a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)), cited herein:
An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.
……
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.
……
C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine 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. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
D. Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process
Examiners should keep in mind that both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes. For example, in Mortgage Grader, the patentee claimed a computer-implemented system and a method for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The Federal Circuit determined that both the computer-implemented system and method claims were directed to "anonymous loan shopping", which was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1318, 1324-25, 117 USPQ2d at 1695, 1699-1700. See also FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294 (identifying both system and process claims for detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information in a health-care system computer environment as directed to abstract idea of detecting fraud); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (system and method claims of inputting information from a hard copy document into a computer program). Accordingly, the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim.
4. On Remarks pages 7-8, Applicant argues that the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The idea of scheduling and performing a walk through or tour of a property like a home for sale or rent between a listing agent like a realtor and a buyer or buyers, existed before and still exists outside the realm of computer or computers networks. Therefore the claims still recite an abstract idea.
The additional elements do not recite an improvement in technology as claimed rather the additional elements beyond the abstract idea discussed below merely result in apply it or generally linking to the field of computers.
Further applicant’s paragraph 0031 does not disclose an improvement to the functioning of a computer as defined in MPEP 2106.05(a), rather at best this merely recites mere instructions to apply the exception as defined in MPEP 2106.05(f), as this merely recites a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it”.
5. Applicant’s arguments on remarks pages 8-10 with respect to the prior art rejection are acknowledged, however are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 recite a machine as the claims recite a remote hosting computing platform that includes processors and devices.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of scheduling and performing a walk through or tour of a property like a home for sale or rent between a listing agent like a realtor and a buyer or buyers.
The idea of scheduling and performing a walk through or tour of a property like a home for sale or rent between a listing agent like a realtor and a buyer or buyers includes observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper accordingly the claims recite a mental process.
Further, the idea of scheduling and performing a walk through or tour of a property like a home for sale or rent between a listing agent like a realtor and a buyer or buyers includes a commercial or legal interaction activity a human or human could perform including sales activities or behaviors, specifically selling or renting a home. Subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors is a certain method of organizing human activities.
Mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims:
Examiner’s note: the Examiner has bolded and underlined the additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Limitations not bolded and underlined are considered part of the abstract idea.
1. (original) A remote hosting computing platform for conducting a live stream walkthrough of a real estate property, the platform comprising:
a viewer portal operating on a plurality of purchaser mobile devices, each purchaser mobile device, included in the plurality of purchase mobile devices, comprising a processor, the viewer portal configured to allow a plurality of purchasers, each purchaser included in the plurality of purchasers, associated with a purchaser mobile device included in the plurality of purchaser mobile devices, to tune in to the live stream walkthrough, via the plurality of purchaser mobile devices, from a location that is remote from the real estate property;
and an agent portal operating on an agent mobile device, said agent mobile device comprising a second processor, that allows an agent to:
broadcast the live stream walkthrough that showcases the real estate property to the viewer portal operating on the plurality of purchaser mobile devices; and during the live stream walkthrough:
receive an electronic inquiry from at least two purchasers, included in the plurality of purchasers, via the associated purchaser mobile devices;
conduct an electronic private chat with the at least two purchasers via the associated purchaser mobile devices;
provide an interactive computing module on the plurality of purchaser mobile devices, said interactive computing module enables the at least two purchasers, via the associated purchaser mobile devices, to apply to purchase the real estate.
2. (original) The platform of claim 1, wherein the agent is a first agent, and the live stream walkthrough is a first live stream walkthrough, the agent portal allows a second agent to broadcast a second live stream walkthrough showcasing the real estate property.
3. (original) The platform of claim 2, wherein the first live stream walkthrough and the second live stream walkthrough are broadcast simultaneously from the real estate property.
4. (original) The platform of claim 2 wherein the agent portal is configured to: guide the first agent though the real estate property to generate the first live stream walkthrough; and guide the second agent through the real estate property to generate the second live stream walkthrough.
5. (original) The platform of claim 4 wherein the agent portal coordinates movement of the first and second agents such that the first live stream walkthrough does not interfere with the second live stream walkthrough.
6. (original) The platform of claim 1 further comprising a search module that allows the purchaser to search for a target real estate property from among a plurality of real estate properties based on whether the live stream walkthrough has been scheduled for the target real estate property.
7. (original) The platform of claim 1 wherein the broadcast of the live stream walkthrough is initiated by the agent when the agent is physically present on the real estate property.
8. (original) The platform of claim 1 wherein the live stream walkthrough is generated without the agent being physically present on the real estate property.
9. (original) The platform of claim 8 wherein the agent portal is configured to insert an avatar into the live stream walkthrough to represent movement of the agent on the real estate property during the live stream walkthrough.
10. (original) The platform of claim 1 further comprising a scheduling module that allows multiple live stream walkthroughs to be scheduled for the real estate property.
11. (original) The platform of claim 10 wherein each of the multiple live stream walkthroughs are scheduled by a different agent.
12. (original) The platform of claim 10 wherein the scheduling module prevents two live stream walkthroughs from being scheduled at the same time.
13. (original) The platform of claim 10 wherein in response to receiving a start time for a first live stream walkthrough, the scheduling module is configured to prevent a second live stream walkthrough from being scheduled a threshold amount of time after the start time.
14. (original) The platform of claim 13, wherein the threshold amount of time is determined based on an at least one attribute of the real estate property.
15. (original) The platform of claim 10 wherein the scheduling module is configured to:detect a request to schedule a second live stream walkthrough during a time that overlaps with an expected duration of a first live stream walkthrough; and in response to detecting the request that overlaps with the expected duration of the first live stream walkthrough, initiate an override procedure for scheduling the second live stream at the time that overlaps with the expected duration of the first live stream walkthrough.
16. (original) The platform of claim 15 wherein the scheduling module is configured to allow the second live stream walkthrough to be scheduled at the time that overlaps with the expected duration of the first live stream walkthrough in response to detecting a threshold number of requests to view the real estate property.
17. (original) The platform of claim 1 wherein the viewer portal allows the purchaser to tag an area of the real estate property shown during the live stream walkthrough.
18. (original) The platform of claim 17, wherein tagging the area initiates an interactive chat dialogue with the agent.
19. (original) The platform of claim 17, wherein tagging the area triggers a display, on a device of the purchaser, of additional details associated with the tagged area.
20. (original) The platform of claim 19, wherein the additional details comprise an augmented reality view of the tagged area.
As per claim 1, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite allowing purchasers to walk through or tour a home or property for sale or purchase with an agent like a realtor, and for a purchaser to have a chat with a realtor. The additional elements that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recited as being performed via a “computing platform” through portals ( “ a viewer portal” and “an agent portal”), the user communicate instead of in person via “computing devices” that include “processors”, allowing the user to apply to purchase the property rather than by pen and paper this is done through interface software like “computing modules”, chats between users instead of being done in person are done “electronic” and the tour is done through a “live stream” merely results in “apply it”.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, and transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, and no description or the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Specifically this is the case here as the claims recite only the idea of a virtual or online property showing (e.g. a solution or an outcome) through the use of a computing platform with portals, computing devices with processors, modules, electronic chats, and a live stream. Here the claims provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the function which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Further limitations that a human or humans could perform that are instead recited as being performed through a computing platform with portals, computing devices with procesors, modules, electronic chats, and a live stream merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite allowing multiple agents to walkthrough or tour the house. The additional elements that the tour or walkthrough is “live stream” or the use of “portals” merely results in “apply it” or generally linking it to the technological field of computer as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 3, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite allowing multiple agents to walkthrough or tour the house simultaneously. The additional elements that the tour or walkthrough is “live stream” merely results in “apply it” or generally linking it to the technological field of computer as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 4, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite guiding agents through a walk through tour of a house or property. A human could perform this by another human giving the agent directions, walking them through the house, giving them a map or directions of how to walk through the house, etc. The additional elements that the tour or walkthrough is “live stream” and the functions that could be performed by a human are instead recited as being performed by “portals” merely results in “apply it” or generally linking it to the technological field of computer as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 5, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite guiding agents through a walk through tour of a house or property so that they don’t run into or interfere with each other. A human could perform this by another human giving the other directions, walking them through the house, giving them a map or directions of how to walk through the house, etc. The additional elements that the tour or walkthrough is “live stream” and the functions that could be performed by a human are instead recited as being performed by “portals” merely results in “apply it” or generally linking it to the technological field of computer as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite allowing a user to search for a property among multiple properties based on a determination that a tour or walkthrough had been scheduled for a property. A human could perform this by looking through records of where appointments where scheduled previously. The additional elements that the tour or walkthrough is “live stream” merely results in “apply it” or generally linking it to the technological field of computer as detailed above in claim 1.
The fact that the functions that could be performed by a human are instead being performed by a “search module” merely claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, and transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further limitations that a human or humans are instead recited as being performed a search module merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological field of computers.
As per claim 7, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite starting a tour when an agent is physical present on a real estate property. The additional elements that the tour is “a live stream” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 8, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite a walkthrough or tour being generated without an agent being at the property. These are limitations a human or humans could perform as an agent could show pictures of a place to a purchaser or a purchaser could walk through a house with another agent. The additional elements that the tour is “a live stream” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 9, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite an agent walking through a house giving a tour or walk through and purchaser walking through the house with an agent would see the agent as they are walking. The additional elements that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recited as being performed through portals (“an agent portal”) , the tour is done through a “live stream”, and the agent is instead represented by an “avatar” merely results in “apply it”. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery (like a live stream and portals) merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, and transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, and no description or the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Specifically this is the case here as the claims recite only the idea of a virtual or online property showing (e.g. a solution or an outcome) through the use of portals, an avatar, and a live stream. Here the claims provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the function which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Further limitations that a human or humans are instead recited as being performed through portals (“an agent portal”) , the tour is done through a “live stream”, and the agent is instead represented by an “avatar” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological field of computers.
As per claim 10, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite allowing multiple walkthrough or tours of a house with agents. The additional elements that the claims recite these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recited as being performed by a live stream merely result in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
The fact that the functions that could be performed by a human are instead being performed by a “scheduling module” merely claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, and transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further limitations that a human or humans are instead recited as being performed a scheduling module merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological field of computers.
As per claim 11, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite allowing multiple walkthrough or tours of a house with different agents. The additional elements that the claims recite these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recited as being performed by a live stream merely result in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 12, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite preventing multiple walk throughs at the same time. The additional elements that the claims recite these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recited as being performed by a live stream and a scheduling module merely result in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1 and 10.
As per claim 13, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite in response to starting a first tour preventing a second tour from starting for a threshold amount of time. The additional elements that the claims recite these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recited as being performed by a live stream and a scheduling module merely result in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1 and 10.
As per claim 14, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite the threshold amount of time is based on the property. There are no additional elements here beyond those discussed in claim 1.
As per claim 15, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite scheduling two walk through or tours that overlap in expected duration. The additional elements that the claims recite these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recited as being performed by a live stream and a scheduling module merely result in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1 and 10.
As per claim 16, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite scheduling two walk through or tours that overlap in expected duration based on amount of tour requests. The additional elements that the claims recite these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recited as being performed by a live stream and a scheduling module merely result in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1 and 10.
As per claim 17, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite allowing a user to tag an area during a walk through. Specifically a human or humans could perform this by placing an object like a sticky note to come back to talk about a certain part of the house, writing down notes on a sheet of paper to come back to talk about the house, e.g. do I really want this small of a bedroom etc. The additional elements that the tour or walkthrough is “live stream” and the functions that could be performed by a human are instead recited as being performed by “portals” merely results in “apply it” or generally linking it to the technological field of computer as detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 18, the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite by tagging starting a chat dialogue with an agent. This is something a human could perform by looking at their notes going back to the room of interest and discussing options with an agent, like how much does it cost to take this wall down or how much would it cost to put up a fence, etc. There are no additional elements discussed here beyond those in claim 1.
As per claim 19 the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite by tagging the area results in additional details associated with the tagged area. These could be responses from the realtor, for example a lot of this size the fence would probably cost 10,000 or you can’t remove that wall without a lot of cost, or a new refrigerator is probably 2000. The additional elements that these functions a human or humans could perform are instead being displayed on a device of the purchaser merely results in “apply it”. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery (like “on a device”) merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, and transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further limitations that a human or humans are instead recited as being performed on a user device merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological field of computers.
As per claim 20 the claims recite mental process or human activities a human could perform as the claims recite by tagging the area results in additional details associated with the tagged area. These could be responses from the realtor, for example a lot of this size the fence would probably cost 10,000 or you can’t remove that wall without a lot of cost, or a new refrigerator is probably 2000. The additional elements that these functions a human or humans could perform are instead being displayed on an “augmented reality view” merely results in “apply it”. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery (like augmented reality) merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, and transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, and no description or the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Specifically this is the case here as the claims recite only the idea of a virtual or online property showing (e.g. a solution or an outcome) through the use of “an augmented reality view”. Here the claims provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the function which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Further limitations that a human or humans are instead recited as being performed through “an augmented reality view” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological field of computers.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above under the practical application step.
Claim Interpretation
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
9. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
7. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A search module that allows the purchaser to search for a target real estate property from among a plurality of real estate properties based on whether the live stream walkthrough has been scheduled for the target real estate property (see claim 6)
A scheduling module that allows multiple live stream walkthroughs to be scheduled for the real estate property (see claim 10)
The scheduling module prevents two live stream walkthroughs from being scheduled at the same time (see claim 12)
The scheduling module is configured to prevent a second live stream walkthrough from being scheduled a threshold amount of time after the start time (See claim 13)
the scheduling module is configured to: detect a request to schedule a second live stream walkthrough during a time that overlaps with an expected duration of a first live stream walkthrough; and in response to detecting the request that overlaps with the expected duration of the first live stream walkthrough, initiate an override procedure for scheduling the second live stream at the time that overlaps with the expected duration of the first live stream walkthrough (see claim 15)
wherein the scheduling module is configured to allow the second live stream walkthrough to be scheduled at the time that overlaps with the expected duration of the first live stream walkthrough in response to detecting a threshold number of requests to view the real estate property (See claim 16)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
From review the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (software stored on a machine readable memory being executed by a computer), cited herein:
[0011] Machine-readable memory may be a non-transitory media. The machine-readable memory configured to store, in machine- readable data structures: software modules or any other suitable information or data structures. Components of the computer system
may be linked by a system bus, wirelessly or by other suitable interconnections. Computer system components may be present on one or more circuit boards. In some embodiments, the components may be integrated into a single chip. The chip may be silicon- based.
[0012] The computer system may include RAM, ROM, an input/output ("I/O") module and a non-transitory or non-volatile memory. The I/O module may include a microphone, button and/or touch screen which may accept user-provided input. The I/O module may include one or more of a speaker for providing audio output and a video display for providing textual, audiovisual and/or graphical output. A computer system may include various other components, such as a display, battery, speaker, and antennas.
[0013] Software modules may be stored within the non-transitory memory and/or other storage medium. Software modules may provide instructions to the processor that enable the computer system to perform various operations or actions. For example, the non- transitory memory may store software modules such as an operating system, application programs, and an associated database. Some or all of computer executable instructions may be embodied in hardware or firmware components of the computer system.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodward et al. (United States Patent Number: US 11,574,373) further in view of Rohatgi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2019/0116385).
As per claim 1, Woodard et al. teaches A remote hosting computing platform for conducting a live stream walkthrough of a real estate property, the platform comprising: (see abstract and column 3 lines 1-15, Examiner’s note: a virtual showing management system that manages virtual showings of listings and remote computer system).
a viewer portal operating on a plurality of purchaser mobile devices, each purchaser mobile device, included in the plurality of purchaser mobile devices, comprising a processor, the viewer portal configured to allow a plurality of purchasers, each purchaser included in the plurality of purchasers, associated with a purchaser mobile device included in the plurality of purchaser mobile devices, to tune in to a live stream walkthrough, via the plurality of purchaser mobile devices , from a location that is remote from the real estate property; and an agent portal operating on an agent mobile device, said agent mobile device comprising a second processor, that allows an agent to: broadcast the live stream walkthrough that showcases the real estate property to the viewer portal; (see column 2 lines 20-30, column 6 lines 40-55, column 8 lines 33-47, column 9 lines 8-