DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Application
Claims 1 and 3-18 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 12-13, and 15-17 were amended, and claim 7 was cancelled in the response filed 7/6/2026. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-18 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/358,593, filed on July 6, 2022.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 112(b):
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 3-18 (pg. 6, remarks filed 7/6/2026) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1, 8, 10, and 13 have been amended to clarify the previous issues. Therefore, the § 112(b) rejections over claims 1 and 3-18 are withdrawn.
35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the § 101 rejection of claims 1 and 3-18 (pgs. 6-10, remarks filed 7/6/2026) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues, regarding amended independent claim 1, that the claim does not recite judicial exception because the claimed system falls under the statutory category of a “machine” which cannot be performed in a humans mind, and “unlike any process that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper, the present claims require concrete physical steps and could never be completed with mere mental processes” (pg.7, remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the previous office action, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Furthermore, except for the use of computers to implement the abstract idea within a computer environment, there is nothing precluding the underlying functions from being carried out via the human mind with the aid of simple tools (e.g. as cartographers using simple writing/drawing utensils and paper maps).
It is also unclear what “concrete” steps are being referred to, as nothing in the claims uses a result of the abstract idea to control machinery. Nonetheless, the examiner reminds applicant that as per MPEP 2106(I), “eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a "useful, concrete, and tangible result," State Street Bank, 149 F.3d 1368, 1374, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1994)), as this test has been superseded. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 959-60, 88 USPQ2d 1385, 1394-95 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff'd by Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”). The programmed computer or “special purpose computer” test of In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (i.e., the rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the “special purpose” of executing the algorithm or software) was also superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[W]e note that Alappat has been superseded by Bilski, 561 U.S. at 605–06, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”).”
Applicant further argues (pgs. 9-10, remarks), after generally discussing the features of the invention, that:
“These are technical steps that constitute a system for generating complex graphical displays of parcels, overlaid with various categories of in-depth, characterizing information, efficiently optimized by making a quantity of cloud computing resources available to the server system as needed. The steps of transforming the parcel data and the flood risk data into a common geospatial reference associated with a geographic map, and computing an intersection between the parcel boundary lines and one or more flood risk geometries provide an integration of disparate forms of characterizing data for a parcel. This is a technological innovation in the field of real estate parcel research and development. The result is an optimized real estate parcel visualization system, which is a practical and tangible outcome. As such, the claims clearly disclose a technological system that includes specific machine system for processing steps that result in a real-world, dynamic optimization of mapping, calculating, analyzing, and visualizing the qualities of real estate parcels. The claimed system as a whole, its features, and the optimized generation of a complex graphical display, cannot feasibly be performed in the human mind.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. That the claims contain other limitations which recite additional elements (for analysis under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B) does not change the fact that the claim still recites a plurality of functions that fall under “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (abstract ideas). Steps such as obtaining parcel data, transforming parcel data, calculating parcel dimensions, computing (determining) an intersection between parcel boundaries and flood areas, determining regions to apply a flood risk classification/development restriction, calculating a dimensional measure, and displaying property information including various information associated with the parcel and the determined flood regions, all describe processes that fall under mental processes. In addition, the amended claims add further limitations that also describe the performance of mathematical calculations, such that several limitations in the claim also fall under the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. That the system is “efficiently optimized” by using cloud computing resources does not describe a specific improvement to cloud computing technology, and “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claim instead recites use of a remote server/cloud computing resources at a high level of generality that generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
In response to the argument that “This is a technological innovation in the field of real estate parcel research and development,” even if the claims recite an improvement to an underlying abstract idea, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality or an improvement to any specific technology or technical field. Real estate parcel research and development is a commercial industry, not a specific technology being improved. In response to the argument that “The result is an optimized real estate parcel visualization system, which is a practical and tangible outcome,” the examiner has already addressed this above in that as per MPEP 2106(I), “eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a "useful, concrete, and tangible result," State Street Bank, 149 F.3d 1368, 1374, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1994)), as this test has been superseded.”
Applicant further argues (pg. 10, remarks), that:
“However, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application and contains an inventive concept that goes beyond routine or conventional steps. The claimed invention provides the benefit of receiving and analyzing data from a plurality of disparate sources, making a quantity of cloud computing resources available, and depicting real property information overlayed on a parcel of land. The system optimized efficiency by pulling information from disparate sources and varying the computing resources available to the server system based on the query at-hand.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Receiving and analyzing data and depicting real estate parcel information describe the abstract idea itself. The claims also make no mention of some specific mechanism for varying the computing resources available, but instead “makes a quantity of cloud computing resources available to the server system.” As already discussed by the examiner in the 3/4/2026 response to arguments, the cloud computing configuration described in the claims is laid out in the applicant’s disclosure as simply including a commercially available and off the shelf cloud computing option to carry out the abstract idea. See published specification at ¶ 0029 (“the server computer system may be, for example, provided by cloud computing services such as web servers offered with on-demand availability by a service such as Amazon Web Services (AWS)”). Nonetheless, as also described above, the specific limitations for “the remote server system comprising a webservice network that makes a quantity of cloud computing resources available to the server system” also merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, the examiner maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the previous § 101 rejection is maintained over the remaining pending claims 1, 3-6, and 8-18, and is updated below based on the 7/6/2026 amendments.
35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 103 rejections of claims 1 and 3-18 (pgs. 10-14, remarks filed 7/6/2026) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Amended claim 1 has overcome any reasonable combination of the prior art, for the reasons discussed in further detail below (See “Novelty/Non-Obviousness”).
Therefore, the previous § 103 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11-13, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 introduces “one or more parcel boundary lines” and then later recites multiple instances of “the parcel boundary lines,” but it appears that they should read “the one or more parcel boundary lines.”
Claim 11 recites “the web services network,” but in view of claim 1, appears it should recite “the webservice network.”
Claim 12 recites “The system of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining…and displaying…” – however, as claim 12 is directed to a system, it appears the preamble should read “The system of claim 1, wherein the computer-readable instructions cause the server system to…obtain…and display…” to avoid unintentionally claiming both an apparatus and a method in the same claim.
Claim 13 recites “a user of the device…” which does not affect the examiner’s ability to determine the scope of the claim, but appears it should recite “a user of a device.”
Claims 17-18 recite “The system of claim 1, further operable to…,” but appear they should read along the lines of “The system of claim 1, wherein the computer-readable instructions cause the server system to…” in order to clarify the preamble in each claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-6, and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 as amended recites “transform the parcel data for a parcel in the one or more parcels and the flood risk data into a common geospatial reference associated with a geographic map,” and another limitation referencing “a geographic map of land.” However, claim 1 then recites a plurality of subsequent limitations which reference “the geographic map,” which renders claim 1 indefinite because it is unclear whether they are intended to refer to the first “a geographic map,” or the second “a geographic map of land.” See Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211, (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008), holding “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions” the claim may be rejected as indefinite during prosecution.
Claims 8-10 and 12 also recite “the geographic map,” while claim 9 also recites “the map,” and these claims are indefinite for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
For the purposes of further examination, instances of “the geographic map” (without explicitly specifying “map of land”) are interpreted as referring to either of the recited geographic maps.
Claims 3-6 and 8-18 are also rejected under § 112(b) as they depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-18 recite “A system…the system comprising: a server system…a processor…” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1 recites limitations for viewing integrated property information to:
receive and analyze data from a plurality of disparate sources,
obtain parcel data corresponding to one or more parcels and flood risk data,
transform the parcel data for a parcel in the one or more parcels and the flood risk data into a common geospatial reference associated with a geographic map, wherein the transformation reconciles boundary geometries of a floodplain and a regulatory floodway relative to one or more parcel boundary lines,
calculate parcel dimensions based on the parcel data,
compute an intersection between the parcel boundary lines and floodplain and the regulatory floodway to thereby determine one or more risk geometries relative to the parcel boundary lines,
determine, based on the intersection, one or more subregions within the parcel corresponding to a flood risk classification and a regulatory development restriction,
calculate, based on the parcel data, a dimensional measure for each of the one or more subregions,
and display/present the parcel dimensions and real property information that includes:
at least a portion of a geographic map of land, the geographic map depicting roads present on the land and land-water boundaries;
a plurality of real estate parcels shown by parcel boundary lines drawn onto the geographic map;
a numerical measure of a length displayed along one or more of the parcel boundary lines;
a flood risk at locations on the geographic map of the land depicted as a floodplain superimposed on the geographic map; and
one or more locations of regulatory floodways,
and for at least one of the parcels, the determined one or more subregions within the parcel within the parcel boundary lines and the dimensional measure associated with the one or more subregions, such that the user may see a portion of the parcel within the floodplain, a portion of the parcel outside of the floodplain, and a portion of the parcel associated with the regulatory floodway
These limitations of independent claim 1 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. receive and analyze information, obtain parcel data, calculate parcel dimensions, and then display maps of land depicting these parcels along with other geographic information relating to the parcel such as roads, land-water boundaries, parcel boundaries, floodplains, and regulatory floodways) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The limitations above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools. For example, receiving and analyzing data, obtaining parcel data, transforming parcel data/flood risk data, calculating parcel dimensions, computing an intersection, determining…one or more sub-regions, and calculating a dimensional measure amount to observations, evaluations, or judgements (which may be performed with or without the use of pen/paper), while the limitations to “present real property information…” could reasonably include a person (e.g. a cartographer) drawing a map including land, road, land-water boundaries, and representations and measurements for real-estate parcels, while using simple tools (e.g. colored pens, pencils, or markers, or translucent paper) to overlay or draw “superimposed” floodplains and mark regulatory floodways on the map. Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claim 1 can be characterized as mental processes that can be performed by a human with the aid of physical aid (e.g. colored drawing utensils and paper), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
It is notable that the courts have found similar claims for organizing and displaying maps and layers on maps to be capable of being performed by humans with the aid of simple tool, and thus directed to an abstract idea. See International Business Machines Corporation v. Zillow Group, Inc., in which the courts found claims for organizing and displaying visual information (e.g. maps and layers on maps) on a display device to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, also stating that “[T]he patent's purely functional steps—of organizing information based on color, lines, or other patterns, and then layering and relayering said information—could be done using paper and ink and have long been done by cartographers.”
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations,” and “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” The instant claims recite limitations to calculate parcel dimensions based on the parcel data, compute an intersection between the parcel boundary lines and floodplain and the regulatory floodway, and calculate, based on the parcel data, a dimensional measure for each of the one or more subregions. These limitations recite mathematical calculations, and therefore these limitations of claim 1 also fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
As claim 1 is identified as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. receive and analyze information, obtain parcel data, calculate parcel dimensions, and then display maps of land depicting these parcels along with other geographic information relating to the parcel such as roads, land-water boundaries, parcel boundaries, floodplains, and regulatory floodways) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A system for viewing property information, the system comprising: a server system…comprising a remote server system…a processor operably associated with the server system comprising a tangible memory subsystem comprising computer-readable instructions executable by the processor to cause the server system to…,” and “… render…for display on a display device and present a graphical user interface…” of claim 1). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The recited use of a server system to receive data, and presenting information and a graphical user interface on a display “display device” is no more than the use of generic computers in their ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea - in other words, the claims merely invoke the server system, processor, and display device/graphical user interface as tools to execute the abstract idea on computers or within a computer environment. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
In addition, the limitations specifying that “the remote server system comprising a webservice network that makes a quantity of cloud computing resources available to the server system” does not add anything beyond generally linking the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cloud computing used at a high level of generality). The cloud computing configuration described in the claims is laid out in the applicant’s disclosure as simply using a widespread, commercially available cloud computing option such as AWS to enable the server system/processor to carry out the abstract idea. See published specification at ¶ 0029 (“the server computer system may be, for example, provided by cloud computing services such as web servers offered with on-demand availability by a service such as Amazon Web Services (AWS)”). Thus, it is clear that applicant’s claimed invention does not provide any improvement to the functioning of computers, an improvement to cloud computing technology, or an improvement to any other technology – but instead merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a cloud computing environment.
Therefore, the claims do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. receive and analyze information, obtain parcel data, calculate parcel dimensions, and then display maps of land depicting these parcels along with other geographic information relating to the parcel such as roads, land-water boundaries, parcel boundaries, floodplains, and regulatory floodways) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A system for viewing property information, the system comprising: a server system…comprising a remote server system…a processor operably associated with the server system comprising a tangible memory subsystem comprising computer-readable instructions executable by the processor to cause the server system to…,” and “… render…for display on a display device and present a graphical user interface…” of claim 1). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The recited use of a server system to receive data, and presenting information and a graphical user interface on a display “display device” is no more than the use of generic computers in their ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea - in other words, the claims merely invoke the server system, processor, and display device/graphical user interface as tools to execute the abstract idea on computers. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
In addition, the limitations specifying that “the remote server system comprising a webservice network that makes a quantity of cloud computing resources available to the server system” does not add anything beyond generally linking the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cloud computing used at a high level of generality). The cloud computing configuration described in the claims is laid out in the applicant’s disclosure as simply using a widespread, commercially available cloud computing option such as AWS to enable the server system/processor to carry out the abstract idea. See published specification at ¶ 0029 (“the server computer system may be, for example, provided by cloud computing services such as web servers offered with on-demand availability by a service such as Amazon Web Services (AWS)”). Thus, it is clear that applicant’s claimed invention does not provide any improvement to the functioning of computers, an improvement to cloud computing technology, or an improvement to any other technology – but instead merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a cloud computing environment.
Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not indicate anything other than generic computer implementation to apply the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims 3-6 and 8-18:
Dependent claims 3-6 and 8-18 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3-5, 12, and 16 recite the following limitations, which do not recite any additional elements beyond those already addressed above, but merely further describe the abstract idea for: “the flood risk geometries show an area deemed to lie within a 100 year floodplain” (claim 3); “wherein the flood risk geometries are depicted using curves…” (claim 4); “wherein the flood risk geometries are visually distinct from the floodplain” (claim 5); “obtaining owner information…displaying the owner information” (claim 12); and “depict, for the parcel, information showing or linking to at least one: applicable zoning code; local demographic data; local climate zone or classification” (claim 16).
Claim 6 further recites mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components (“the transformation is executed by an integration module in the remote server system”).
Claims 8-10 and 13-14 recite additional steps describing the abstract idea above (“obtain…records of levels of cell tower activity and display activity levels on the geographic map…” of claim 8; “transforms the levels of cell tower activity into an estimate of traffic levels on the geographic map and…display the estimated traffic levels on the map” of claim 9; “obtain…a record of an environmental hazard on the land and place a mark on the geographic map…” of claim 10; “send user queries…receive the real property information…wherein the owner information is made available to a user …” of claim 13; and “wherein the owner information…is filtered” of claim 14) while being applied using generic computers/computer components and/or computers operating in their ordinary capacity (“from the remote server system…” of claim 8; “the remote server system” and “the server system” of claim 9; “from the remote server system” of claim 10; “the computer-readable instructions,” “the server system,” “one or more remote servers in the remote server system that maintains a parcel owner database” of claim 13; and “the server system” of claim 14).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the web services network provides the quantity of cloud computing resources in proportion to the quantity of parcel data being transformed” – however, this limitation generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and does not provide an improvement to any of these technical elements or any other technology, or otherwise integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. See published application US20240013325A1 at ¶ 0029, ¶ 0044 showing use of existing, off-the-shelf technology which does not indicate an improvement to the relevant technology.
Claim 15 specifies “wherein the graphical user interface includes a search tool via which a user may enter search terms to inform the depicted real property information” – which just uses a graphical user interface in its ordinary capacity to receive user input.
Claims 17-18 “link” a user to property records for the parcel (claim 17) and provides a user with links to a service provider optionally selected from an architect, a land surveyor, an environmental studies firm, optionally searchable by an address of a selected parcel” (claim 18) which at best links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and amounts to sending data to the user, which is no more than the use of computers in their ordinary capacity.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-6, and 8-18 are ineligible under § 101.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-18 are novel and nonobvious over the prior art.
With respect to independent claim 1, the closest prior art is:
US 20090142002 A1 to Middendorf et al. teaches a system for viewing integrated property information (Middendorf: ¶ 0048-0051 showing a computer system) including a computer system/server (Middendorf: ¶ 0048-0051 and ¶ 0057-0060) configured to read and analyze data from a plurality of disparate sources (Middendorf: ¶ 0057-0061; Figs. 3-7/¶ 0076-0086, Figs. 9-10 and ¶ 0090-0100, ¶ 0104-0109), a processor and memory comprising computer-readable instructions executable by the processor (Middendorf: ¶ 0048-0050) to cause the server system to calculate parcel dimensions (Middendorf: ¶ 0017, ¶ 0067-0068, ¶ 0076-0079; ¶ 0061), read a plurality of GIS data from different GIS data formats (Middendorf: ¶ 0069-0074), and display parcels and the parcel dimensions for display on a display device (Middendorf: ¶ 0054, ¶ 0066, Figs. 3-7, and ¶ 0076-0078, ¶ 0083-0086), present a graphical user interface depicting real property information (Middendorf: Figs. 3-7, and ¶ 0076-0078, ¶ 0083-0086 showing the computer executes an application which displays a user interface presenting parcel information) that includes: a map in a GIS tool (Middendorf: Figs. 3-7, ¶ 076-0078, ¶ 0083-0086), the map depicting road and land-water boundaries (Middendorf: Figs. 3-7 and ¶ 0076-0078, ¶ 0083-0086, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0104-0105, ¶ 0037), a plurality of real estate parcels shown by parcel boundary lines drawn onto the map (Middendorf: Figs. 3-7, ¶ 0076-0078, ¶ 0083-0086 showing plurality of real estate parcels with boundary lines), and measurements displayed along the parcel boundary lines (Middendorf: Figs. 5/7, and ¶ 0083-0086).
US 20180182041 A1 to Sheridan et al. (Sheridan) teaches generating flood risk maps on a geographic map depicted as a floodplain superimposed on the geographic map (Sheridan: ¶ 0086-0094, and Figs. 6 and 7 showing generating flood risk map visualization overlaid on a city parcel map) that show the locations of regulatory floodways and various flood risk zones overlaid on parcel outlines (Sheridan: Figure 6, and user interfaces of Figs. 7-8, and ¶ 0086-0095, ¶ 0079) and portions of parcels that are within or not within each of any of the displayed flood risk zones (Sheridan: Figs. 6-7, ¶ 0089-0094); obtaining parcel, mapping and GIS related data from a remote server system including a cloud computing system including a database querying interface for providing access to data from geocoding data providers 108, the property value providers 106, the flood map providers 104, and the insurance providers 102 (Sheridan: Fig. 10; ¶ 0109-0111) and a cloud computing environment that facilitates provision of computing resources from a data center to a particular computing device (Sheridan: ¶ 0111).
US 20230401223 A1 to Fritz et al. (Fritz) teaches a remote cloud computing system including a plurality of compute instances that includes a compute service and provisions a plurality of storage and computing resources (e.g. instances) for use by a client system to store/retrieve spatial data, and wherein the quantity of cloud computing resources can be allocated or scaled according to the volume of data (Fritz: ¶ 0023, ¶ 0032-0039, ¶ 0045-0046, Figs. 3A-3B, Fig. 4, Figs. 6-7).
WO 2022235956 A1 to Rothman teaches accessing map data and flood risk data and a region in order to model the flood risk, where flood risk scores are determined for each of a plurality of sub-regions, including transforming a FEMA flood zone dataset and a land cover map dataset into a third data scheme for (Rothman: Fig. 3A, Pg. 4: 3-25, Pg. 7: 1 – Pg. 8: 28, Pg. 10: 23 – Pg. 11: 31).
US 20200097491 A1 to Berthiaume teaches computing a fraction of parcel in a flood zone (Berthiaume: ¶ 0052-0053).
NPL Reference U to Zambo et al. (“Using GIS to Analyze Real Estate with Flood Zones”) teaches collecting map layers and flood zone data from several sources, in order to allow a consumer to view the elevation and flood risk associated with a real estate parcel (Pgs. 346-347).
However, no reasonable combination of the closest prior art teaches all of the following limitations, considered together in the context of the claims as a whole:
transform the parcel data for a parcel in the one or more parcels and the flood risk data into a common geospatial reference associated with a geographic map, wherein the transformation reconciles boundary geometries of a floodplain and a regulatory floodway relative to one or more parcel boundary lines;
compute an intersection between the parcel boundary lines and the floodplain and the regulatory floodway to thereby determine one or more risk geometries relative to the parcel boundary lines;
determine, based on the intersection, one or more subregions within the parcel corresponding to a flood risk classification and a regulatory development restriction; calculate, based on the parcel data, a dimensional measure for each of the one or more subregions;
the determined one or more subregions within the parcel rendered within the parcel boundary lines and the dimensional measure associated with the one or more subregions, such that the user may see a portion of the parcel within the floodplain, a portion of the parcel outside of the floodplain, and a portion of the parcel associated with the regulatory floodway
The other previously cited prior art including US 20110276259 A1 to Nortrup et al. (Nortrup), US 20240193886 A1 to Sadalgi et al. (Sadalgi), US 10482536 B1 to Doyle et al. (Doyle), US 20020145617 A1 to Kennard et al. (Kennard), US 20040183826 A1 to Taylor et al. (Taylor), and US 20020062218 A1 to Pianin do not cure the deficiencies above.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-6, and 8-18 are novel and nonobvious over the prior art.
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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached on (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
