Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on May 23, 2023.
It appears the inventors filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The claims must be in one sentence form only, with only one capital letter. Specific terms should be preceded by the indefinite “a” or “an” the first time each term is introduced and should be preceded by the definite “the” for each subsequent recitation (to avoid lack of antecedent bases issues). Narrative and illustrative language (i.e., “Example: ….”) should be avoided in claims. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, there are multiple steps that may need to be assessed. First, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in step 2A prong 1 whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in step 2A prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in step 2B whether the claim recites “significantly more” than the abstract idea. See “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,” 84 Fed. Reg. (4): 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019).
In the instant case, Claims 1 and 2 are directed toward a method, i.e., process. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories as required by step 1. Nevertheless, the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea in step 2A prong 1. Independent Claim 1 recites as follows:
Claim 1. An online application and method for real estate transactions for buyers, sellers, renters and 3rd party real estate providers with at least one or more user profiles registered in the user interface of the application, the method comprising;
creating a database of information for all users, the database created from inputted information by users, including at least an Email id, Full name, password, address, price, and other parameters based on user options;
Spliting the users based on different profile category in the database and generating unique Fifsee ID per user. Example: Buyers Fifsee ID: BU12x34, Sellers Fifsee ID: SE12y34, Appraisers Fifsee ID: APP889w2, etc. and storing them in database;
providing data displayable for a particular user based on selected option;
enabling a user to respond to a request, chat, schedule meetings and appointment with other users for the physical inspection of a property, and other services based on provided information.
The bold language above corresponds to the abstract ideas recited in Claim 1 (whereas the underlined language is language that is addressed in step 2A prong 2 and step 2B). As the bold language above demonstrates, Applicant’s claims are directed toward facilitating real estate transactions. This is a certain method of organizing human activities, specifically one of commercial and legal interactions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Because the instant invention aids in the sale, purchase, or lease activities related to real property, the invention is reciting a certain method of organizing human activities, specifically commercial and legal interactions.
Finding the claims to be directed toward an abstract idea, however, is not the end of the inquiry. Rather, the next step is to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). The revised guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the exception into a practical application: 1) an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, 2) an additional element that implements the judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, 3) an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 4) an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Examples where a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include: 1) use of “apply it” or the equivalent, i.e., merely using a computer to implement or perform an abstract idea, 2) an additional element that adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 3) an additional element that does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See id.
Applying these considerations to the claims in the instant application, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims fail to recite an improvement of a computer, any improvement to a technology or technical field, any particular machine, any transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or any additional element that uses the judicial exception in a meaningful way. Instead, the claims are merely reciting instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., “online application;” “user interface”), which is insufficient to provide a practical application of the claims and provide subject matter eligibility. See id. Therefore, there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
If the claims are not integrated into a judicial exception, the Examiner must consider whether there is “significantly more” recited in the claim in step 2B. See MPEP § 2106.05. There is nothing unconventional or inventive in Applicant’s claims for the purpose of analysis under step 2B, e.g., any combination of elements that provide an advance over any technological state of the art. Rather, as noted above, an abstract commercial or legal interaction is merely implemented by a general-purpose computer. Other than the limitations that are abstract for the reasons articulated above, Applicant has merely recited a generic computer that facilitates the steps of the invention. Thus, Applicant’s claims merely recite a computer to implement the abstract idea, which fails to provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
As the MPEP states, Examiners may consider the following three factors when determining whether the claim recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: 1) whether 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; 2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and 3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applying those factors to the instant application: 1) the claims do not recite how the computer performs any of the steps other than just stating that they do it; 2) the claims invoke the computer to perform a process of real estate sale, purchase, or lease that has been performed without computers and before the ubiquity of computers; and 3) the claims are generic and not recited in much particularity because it can apply to any way of facilitating the commercial interactions.
The dependent claim 2 is merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and does not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Specifically, it recites display of a feed by splitting tabs of other users and displaying the results of the abstract idea. This is an example of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, i.e., selected or collected, analyzed, and displayed. The MPEP notes that such a selection of a particular data source to be manipulated is insignificant extra solution activity and thus fails to provide an integration into a practical application or “significantly more” than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In other words, dependent claim 2 fails to recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limitations that, in an ordered combination provide “significantly more” or providing any integration into a practical application. Thus, Claims 1 and 2 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (US 2022/0327644 A1) in view of CA 2970021 A1 (author unknown, hereinafter “Canada”).
Claim 1. Xie teaches: An online application and method for real estate transactions for buyers, sellers, renters and 3rd party real estate providers with at least one or more user profiles registered in the user interface of the application (see, e.g., Figure 1 teaching a real estate transaction application platform for buyers, sellers, tenants, and landlords; see also Figure 6 teaching a profile 154 and user interface application view; see further Figures 7, 9-11 and 25 further teaching additional user profiles), the method comprising;
creating a database of information for all users, the database created from inputted information by users, including at least an Email id, Full name, password, address, price, and other parameters based on user options (see, e.g., ¶s 31-32 teaching that the MLS database can optionally be part of the database of properties; see ¶ 135 teaching that the app allows owners, landlords, sellers, etc. to use their own devices to create “a consolidated and/or comprehensive single database of global (residential and/or commercial) real estate listings and/or inventory;” see also ¶ 113 teaching that the users create an account profile by entering a user name, a profile picture, a phone number, address, et al., noting that Figure 7 feature 102 shows a first and last name in a profile view; regarding email identification and password, see Figure 12 feature 300 and ¶ 107 teaching that accessing the app requires a log in that utilizes an email address and password; regarding “price,” see Figures 3A, 32 and 38 and ¶s 20, 140, and 180);
Spliting the users based on different profile category in the database and generating unique Fifsee ID per user. Example: Buyers Fifsee ID: BU12x34, Sellers Fifsee ID: SE12y34, Appraisers Fifsee ID: APP889w2, etc. and storing them in database (see, e.g., ¶ 107 teaching that each user must have a unique email address and password to be able to log into an account; regarding that the account is a “Fifsee ID,” Examiner notes that this label is not a term that has any known meaning and thus is not given patentable weight; see further ¶ 139 teaching storing user profiles and histories in a database);
providing data displayable for a particular user based on selected option (see, e.g., at least Figures 1, 2, 3A, 3B, and 4-30 teaching a series of exemplary screen shots of a GUI that display data for a particular user based on potential selected options);
enabling a user to respond to a request, chat, schedule meetings and appointment with other users for the physical inspection of a property, and other services based on provided information (see, e.g., ¶s 121, 139, and Figure 11 feature 182, and Figures 31-33 feature 220 teaching affording the users an in-app chat functionality; see further ¶ 143 regarding scheduling appointments via the app).
Regarding the limitations of assigning a unique Fifsee ID per user and arranging for the physical inspection of a property, Examiner notes that Xie fails to expressly teach these limitations above. Nevertheless, such limitations are taught in the prior art. Canada, for example, teaches such features. Regarding assigning a unique ID per user, Canada teaches that each user of the invention has a “User Number” that is a “unique identifier for each user” as well as that each seller and buyer has a number (see Canada page 8). Regarding arranging for the physical inspection of the property, Canada teaches that inspections can be arranged as part of the negotiations between buyer and seller (see, e.g., Canada pages 6 and 9). Canada is analogous to the instant application and Xie because it relates to a computerized process to facilitate transactions between individual buyers and sellers of residential real estate (see Canada Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known techniques of providing a unique identification for each user and arranging for a physical inspection (as disclosed by Canada) to the known method and system of facilitating direct buyer to seller or landlord and tenant access to real property transactions (as disclosed by Xie). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of providing a unique identification for each user because it would allow each buyer and seller to be uniquely identifiable and distinguishable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of arranging for a physical inspection because it is a key part of the negotiation process when selling a parcel of real property between buyer and seller (see Canada pages 6 and 9).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known techniques of providing a unique identification for each user and arranging for a physical inspection (as disclosed by Canada) to the known method and system of facilitating direct buyer to seller or landlord and tenant access to real property transactions (as disclosed by Xie), because the claimed invention is merely applying known techniques to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 2. The combination of Xie and Canada teach the limitations of Claim 1. Xie further teaches: The method of claim 1,
further displaying the user feed by split in tabs of all other users by their profile id (see, e.g., Figure 6 teaching a split tab of the user by the user’s profile id, which would be unique for each user’s profile ID);
Locating Fifsee ID based on the address and price range from the sellers, buyers, tenants and landlords and populate the full set of parameters on each other's feed in the application user interface (see, e.g., ¶ 140 teaching listing price 128 and address 130 as parameters when displaying the available properties on the application user interface; see further ¶ 180 teaching filtering the properties by, e.g., price; see additionally Fiugre 32);
Locating Fifsee ID of businesses (others) matching the location addresses and populate the full set of parameters on each other's feed by separating them on tabs in the application user interface such as Buyers tab, Sellers tab, landlords tab and tenants tab (regarding separating the parameters on tabs in the application user interface by buyers, sellers, landlords, and tenants, see Figure 1 teaching that each user must select which category he or she fits into, which affects the apps later display; see also, e.g., Figure 16 teaching 108b listing that the particular agent is a “buyer;” regarding locating businesses or properties by entering address and populating the full set of parameters on each other’s feed, see, e.g., ¶ 119 teaching providing a Google Map with pinned listings by address; see also ¶ 140 and Figures 3B and 38 teaching substantially the same; see also ¶ 117 teaching geolocation algorithms that determine which agents 60c are ”on duty” or closest to the desired properties to then connect the searcher with the appropriate agent based on proximity; Examiner further notes regarding a business id number, Canada teaches such a limitation as explained in the rejection of Claim 1 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Wilson et al., US 2015/0170299 A1; Calonge, US 2009/0240565 A1; Vong, US 2019/0236729 A1; Mudhar et al., US 2014/0129366 A1; Smedberg et al., US 2014/0344112 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAN P MINCARELLI whose telephone number is (571)270-5909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan C. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAN P MINCARELLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626