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, 6, 9, 11, and 13-14 were amended. Claims 1 and 3-18 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 112(b) Rejection(s):
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 112(b) rejections of claims 6-7, 9, 11, and 13-14 (pg. 6, remarks filed 2/6/2026) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 6, 9, 11, and 13-14 are amended to correct the previous issues pertaining to “the device.” The previous § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, see the new § 112(b) rejection(s) over claims 1-13 in response to the amendments.
35 USC § 101 Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1 and 3-18 (pgs. 6-7, remarks filed 2/6/2026) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant discusses the claim amendments, and first argues that:
“[A]mended independent claim 1 is not directed to any judicial exception under Prong One, because the claimed system cannot be performed using paper and ink, due to the vast amount of processing power and information storage available to a cloud- based computing network” (pg. 7, remarks)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is unclear how “the vast amount of processing power and information storage available to a cloud- based computing network” has any impact on the ability of the underlying functions in the claim to describe mental processes. The examiner reminds applicant that “[C]laiming 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 recited concepts of obtaining parcel data, calculating parcel dimensions, and rendering parcel dimensions for display including a geographic map, a plurality of real estate parcels, a numerical measure of length along parcel boundary lines, a flood risk at various locations as a floodplain laid over the geographic map, and one or more location of regulatory floodways – can all otherwise be performed by humans (such as cartographers using simple writing/drawing utensils) without the use of computers.
Further, 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” and “Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing.”
Further, the recited computer implementation is recited at a high level of generality and does not provide an inventive concept. The mere presence of tangible computer elements to perform the functions identified as an abstract idea does not indicate patent eligibility. See 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”). Specifically addressing the new amended features to “cause the server system to obtain parcel data from a remote server system comprising a web service network configured to provide a quantity of cloud computing resources to the server system” – obtaining parcel data from a remote server merely amounts to receiving or transmitting data, and are generic functions performed by computers being used in their ordinary capacity to carry out the abstract idea on computers. In addition, describing the remote server system as including “a web service network configured to provide a quantity of cloud computing resources to the server system” merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These features are described in applicant’s specification that indicates nothing more than the use of existing technology that could be obtained through other commercial entities/services to carry out the technical implementation (see US20240013325A1 at ¶ 0029 “Data useful for displaying parcels 203 and numerical measures 301 of parcel dimensions may be obtained from a third-party vendor such as Real Estate Portal, USA, using methods as described in U.S. Pat. No. 8,255,418, incorporated by reference. Here, 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). Use of AWS or a similar service may be beneficial as there is no need to maintain idle computers.”). 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.
Applicant further argues that:
“[E]ven if the amended claim were "directed to" a judicial exception, the claim as a whole provides an improved computer system which allows users to see real estate parcels on a map view, generated with precise boundaries and dimensional information based on information obtained by cloud computing resources. The claims herein provide a technical improvement to the valuation, research, mapping, and historical understanding of real estate parcels…The present claim provides a novel and deeply informative tool for users to evaluate a parcel, across and within the parcel boundaries…Applicant submits that none of these steps or elements are abstract, the system as a whole is not abstract, and the result is not abstract. None of the elements of the claim are mental steps and the claim as a whole cannot be carried-out in the mind of an individual, particularly the element of providing a quantity of cloud-based computing resources. Applicant submits that the claimed invention as a whole provides improvements to a computer system and technical field.” (pg. 7, remarks)
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, “allows users to see real estate parcels on a map view, generated with precise boundaries and dimensional information based on information obtained by cloud computing resources” simply describes the performance of the abstract idea being applied using data obtained from computers. As already mentioned above, the cloud computing configuration described in the claims is laid out in the applicant’s disclosure as a commercially available, off the shelf, cloud computing option (“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). Use of AWS or a similar service”). Generic, off-the-shelf, computer implementation to obtain data is not a technological improvement.
Furthermore, the alleged improvement (“The claims herein provide a technical improvement to the valuation, research, mapping, and historical understanding of real estate parcels…The present claim provides a novel and deeply informative tool for users to evaluate a parcel, across and within the parcel boundaries”) is not a technological field. Analyzing real-estate parcels (“valuation, research, mapping, and historical understanding”) is a commercial and/or legal concern, and thus the discussed benefits at best describe an improvement to the underlying abstract idea itself rather than to any specific technology. All technology involved in the claims merely serves the purpose of carryout out these processes within a computer environment.
The § 101 rejection of claims 1 and 3-18 is maintained and updated below to reflect the current claim amendments.
35 USC § 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 103 rejections of claims 1 and 3-18 (pgs. 7-9, remarks filed 2/6/2026) have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection in the current § 103 rejections below, in response to applicant’s amendments.
Please see the current § 103 rejections of claims 1 and 3-18 below.
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 1-13 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 recites limitations for “computer-readable instructions executable by the processor to cause the server system to obtain parcel data from a remote server system comprising a web service network configured to provide a quantity of cloud computing resources to the server system, calculate parcel dimensions, and render the parcel dimensions for display on a display device and present a graphical user interface.”
The above limitation of claim 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear, as written, whether the “calculate,” “render,” and “present” functions is directly tied to either “the processor” (e.g. computer-readable instructions executable by the processor to i) cause the server system to obtain…, ii) calculate…, ii) render…, and iv) present…”) or tied to “the server system” (e.g. computer-readable instructions executable by the processor to cause the server system to i) obtain…ii) calculate parcel dimensions…iii) render …and iv) present).
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.
Although the processor is associated with the server system and thus seems to control the server system, the claims should nonetheless be amended to clarify exactly system element performs each function. For the purpose of further examination, the examiner interprets either of the processor or the server system to perform each function.
Claims 8, 10, and 13 recite “a remote server system.” It is unclear whether “a remote server system” is intended to refer to the same remote server system recited in claim 1, or a new remote server system. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner interprets the claims to refer to any remote server system.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-18 are also rejected under § 112(b) by virtue of their dependence on at least 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 and 3-18 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 and 3-18 recite “A system for viewing integrated property information, 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:
receiving and analyzing data from one or more disparate sources
obtain parcel data
calculate and display parcel dimensions
and present 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, such that, for at least one of the parcels depicted on the geographic map, a user may see a portion of the parcel within the floodplain, a portion of the parcel outside of the floodplain, and a location of a 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 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, and calculating parcel dimensions amount to observations and evaluations, 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, 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.”
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 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…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 obtain…from a remote server system comprising a web service network configured to provide a quantity of cloud computing resources to the server system… 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 present 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). Furthermore, describing the remote server system as including “a web service network configured to provide a quantity of cloud computing resources to the server system” merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These features are described in applicant’s specification that indicates nothing more than the use of existing technology that could be obtained through other commercial entities/services to carry out the technical implementation (see published application US20240013325A1 at ¶ 0029 “Data useful for displaying parcels 203 and numerical measures 301 of parcel dimensions may be obtained from a third-party vendor such as Real Estate Portal, USA, using methods as described in U.S. Pat. No. 8,255,418, incorporated by reference. Here, 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). Use of AWS or a similar service may be beneficial as there is no need to maintain idle computers.”; also see ¶ 0044). 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 describes the computer configuration used to carry out the abstract idea.
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 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…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 obtain…from a remote server system comprising a web service network configured to provide a quantity of cloud computing resources to the server system… render…for display on a display device and present a graphical user interface…” of claim 1). As above, the recited use of a server system to receive data, and present 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 – which does not add significantly more. Furthermore, the remote server system including “a web service network configured to provide a quantity of cloud computing resources to the server system” merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and indicates no more than the use of existing technology (see US20240013325A1 at ¶ 0029 “Data useful for displaying parcels 203 and numerical measures 301 of parcel dimensions may be obtained from a third-party vendor such as Real Estate Portal, USA, using methods as described in U.S. Pat. No. 8,255,418, incorporated by reference. Here, 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). Use of AWS or a similar service may be beneficial as there is no need to maintain idle computers.”; also see ¶ 0044) to apply the abstract idea. 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 describes the computer configuration used to carry out the abstract idea.
Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not indicate anything other than generic computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 3-18:
Dependent claims 3-18 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 floodplain at least showing an area deemed to lie within a 100 year floodplain” (claim 3); “wherein the flood risk is depicted using curves…” (claim 4); “wherein the real property information further includes floodway markings…” (claim 5); “wherein depicted real property information further includes owner information, or a link to the owner information…” (claim 12); and “depict, for at least one of the plurality of real estate parcels, information showing or linking to at least one: applicable zoning code; local demographic data; local climate zone or classification” (claim 16).
Claims 6-10 and 13-14 recite additional steps describing the abstract idea above (“obtains parcel data for the real estate parcels …transform the parcel data into the parcel boundary lines as drawn on the geographic map” of claim 6; “wherein the obtained parcel data comprises a parcel boundary as a geometric shape file, and further…calculates parcel dimensions for display on the geographic map” of claim 7; “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 (“a remote server system that obtains…data…from a data provider and executes an integration module…” of claim 6; “the remote server system” of claim 7; “from a remote server system…” of claim 8; “the remote server system” and “the server system” of claim 9; “from a remote server system” of claim 10; “the server system,” “a remote server system that maintains a parcel owner database” of claim 13; and “the server system” of claim 14).
Claims 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 what depicted real property information is depicted” – which just uses a graphical user interface in its ordinary capacity to receive user input.
Claims 17-18 “link” a user to property records (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 and 3-18 are ineligible under § 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, 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, 3-7, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090142002 A1 to Middendorf et al. (Middendorf) in view of US 20180182041 A1 to Sheridan et al. (Sheridan), and further in view of US 20230401223 A1 to Fritz et al. (Fritz).
Claim 1: Middendorf teaches:
A system for viewing integrated property information (Middendorf: ¶ 0048-0051 showing a computer system), the system comprising:
a server system (Middendorf: ¶ 0048-0051 showing a computer system, including a workstation, personal computer, laptop, client or server; and ¶ 0057-0060) configured to read and analyze data from one or more disparate sources (Middendorf: ¶ 0057-0061 showing acquiring data from database 220, with ¶ 0061 specifying that “Various Boards of Realtors, Federal, state, and county governments are examples of other entities offering access to databases for downloading cadastral, MLS, topographic, address, mapping, and other geographic data of interest that may be useful for performing steps of an application 210 according to various embodiments of the present invention”; see Figs. 3-7/¶ 0076-0086, Figs. 9-10 and ¶ 0090-0100, ¶ 0104-0109 showing analysis of retrieved geographic data; also note that these functions to “receive and analyze data…” are completely untethered from the rest of the claim so could refer to receiving and analyzing any data),
a processor operably associated with the server system comprising a tangible memory subsystem comprising computer-readable instructions executable by the processor (Middendorf: ¶ 0048-0050 showing processor and memory, the processor executing machine-readable instructions) to cause the server system to…
calculate parcel dimensions (Middendorf: ¶ 0017, ¶ 0067-0068, ¶ 0076-0079 measurements calculated using the retrieved/extracted GIS data and displayed on map; see ¶ 0061 specifying computer 215 as a remote computer/server accessed via an application by a user computer 290)
and render the parcel dimensions for display on a display device (Middendorf: ¶ 0054 showing display device; ¶ 0066 a mapping and information tool for real estate professionals and buyers and sellers of real estate; with Figs. 3-7, and ¶ 0076-0078, ¶ 0083-0086 showing the computer executes an application which displays a user interface presenting parcel information, including displayed measurements alongside parcel boundary lines)
and 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:
at least a portion of a geographic map of land (Middendorf: Figs. 3-7 and ¶ 0076-0078, ¶ 0083-0086 showing displaying map in GIS tool),
the geographic map depicting roads present on the land and land-water boundaries (Middendorf: Figs. 3-7 and ¶ 0076-0078, ¶ 0083-0086 showing displaying map in GIS tool including road and parcels, and see ¶ 0009, ¶ 0104-0105 showing displaying geographic features on the GIS application, wherein as per ¶ 0037 “"geographic feature" generally refers to a shape within a GIS data base or data structure that has a defined boundary or periphery. For example, geographic features may include transportation infrastructure, such as streets and highways, trade areas, boundaries, such as ZIP Code boundaries, parcel boundaries, park boundaries, city boundaries, county boundaries, state boundaries and political boundaries rivers, lakes, park boundaries, buildings, city boundaries, land uses, buildings, structures, and the like”);
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);
a numerical measure of a length displayed along one or more of the parcel boundary lines (Middendorf: Figs. 5 and 7, ¶ 0083-0084 and ¶ 0086 showing measurements are displayed alongside parcel boundary lines);
With respect to the following limitations Middendorf teaches a geographic parcel map as per above, but does not explicitly teach the following. However, Sheridan teaches:
a flood risk at locations on the geographic map of the land 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); and
one or more locations of regulatory floodways, such that, for at least one of the parcels depicted on the geographic map, a user may see a portion of the parcel within the floodplain, a portion of the parcel outside of the floodplain (Sheridan: Figure 6, and user interfaces of Figs. 7-8, and ¶ 0086-0095, ¶ 0079 showing city parcel map overlaid/intersected with flood risk maps, i.e. flood plains, which shows portions of parcels that are within or not within each of any of the displayed flood risk zones, and a location of a regulatory floodway (Sheridan: Figs. 6-7, ¶ 0089-0094 showing location of a regulatory floodway indicates on the graphical user interface)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the generation of flood risk map layers and visualization of the flood risk and regulatory floodways of Sheridan in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that there is “a need for an improved system to better track changes in geographic hazards such as flood zones. In combining geographic hazard information with additional layers of mapping features, the data may be analyzed and mined to identify potential community impact, in damages and costs, due to changes in geographic hazards” (Sheridan: ¶ 0005).
With respect to the remaining limitations:
cause the server system to obtain parcel data from a remote server system comprising a web service network configured to provide a quantity of cloud computing resources to the server system
Middendorf teaches the server system obtaining mapping and parcel data from outside data sources (Middendorf: ¶ 0061) – but does not explicitly teach that the data is obtained from a remote server system comprising a web service network configured to provide a quantity of cloud computing resources to the server system.
However, Sheridan teaches 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 “The cloud computing environment 102 may include a provisioning tool 1040 for resource management. The provisioning tool 1040 may be connected to the computing devices of a data center 1034 to facilitate the provision of computing resources of the data center 1034. The provisioning tool 1040 may receive a request for a computing resource via the secure gateway 1032 or a cloud controller 1036. The provisioning tool 1040 may facilitate a connection to a particular computing device of the data center 1034” (Sheridan: ¶ 0111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the cloud computing configuration for obtaining mapping data from remote computing resources as taught by Sheridan in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
However, to the extent that Middendorf/Sheridan still do not explicitly teach the remote cloud computing system (remote server system) comprising a web service network configured to provide a quantity of cloud computing resources to the server system – 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the remote server system including a web service for provisioning a plurality of cloud computing resources for use by client computing systems as taught by Fritz in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation of “(1) improving the availability and latency of a spatial database for ingestion; (2) improving the availability and latency of a spatial database for queries; (3) improving the availability and latency of a spatial database for analytics; (4) improving the quality and utility of ingested spatial data by using automated functions for error correction and/or data enrichment; (5) improving the latency of queries of spatial data in various sources” (Fritz: ¶ 0015), and “clients need not provision or manage individual computing resources” (Fritz: ¶ 0045).
Claim 3: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Middendorf does not explicitly teach, however, Sheridan teaches:
wherein the floodplain at least shows an area deemed to lie within a 100 year floodplain (Sheridan: Fig. 7 showing one of the zones is for “1% Flood Chance/Yr” which is known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a 100 year flood zone)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the flood zone(s) overlaid on the geographic map of Sheridan in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 4: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 3. Middendorf does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Sheridan teaches:
wherein the flood risk is depicted using curves to mark a perimeter of the 100 year floodplain so that, for at least one of the parcels, a user may see portions of the parcel within the 100 year floodplain and portions outside of the 100 year floodplain (Sheridan: Figs. 7-8, ¶ 0094-0095 showing floodzones overlaid on geographic map, with Fig. 7 showing one of the zones is for “1% Flood Chance/Yr” which is known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a 100 year flood zone, and wherein as per ¶ 0090-0092 and ¶ 0094 includes city parcel map upon which the flood zones are visualized over),
optionally also including curves for a 500 year floodplain (Sheridan: Fig. 7 showing “0.2% Flood Chance/Yr” in the flood zone maps, which is known as a 500 year floodplain)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the flood zone(s) overlaid on the geographic map as taught by Sheridan in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 5: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Middendorf does not explicitly teach the following, however, Sheridan teaches:
wherein the real property information further includes floodway markings to indicate designated floodways, wherein the floodway markings are visually distinct from the floodplain (Sheridan: Fig. 7 showing floodway markings indicated distinctly from the other flood zone markings)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the flood zone(s) overlaid on the geographic map as taught by Sheridan in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 6: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 1. Middendorf, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the remote server system obtains parcel data for the real estate parcels from a data provider (Middendorf: ¶ 0058-0061 showing application requests data from a multiple computer configuration including a primary database 220 that provides parcel data for the real estate parcels, wherein “Various Boards of Realtors, Federal, state, and county governments are examples of other entities offering access to databases for downloading cadastral, MLS, topographic, address, mapping, and other geographic data of interest that may be useful for performing steps of an application 210 according to various embodiments of the present invention”)
and executes an integration module to transform the parcel data into the parcel boundary lines as drawn on the geographic map (Middendorf: as per ¶ 0058-0061, the requested data is used to carry out the functions of GIS application 210; ¶ 0104-0105 showing requested data is used to calculate and process the data into parcel boundaries and measurement segments, which as seen in Figs. 3-7, ¶ 0076-0078, ¶ 0083-0086 above is displayed as a plurality of real estate parcels with boundary lines and measurements along outer perimeter of the parcel boundaries)
Claim 7: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 6. Middendorf, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the obtained parcel data comprises a parcel boundary as a geometric shape file (Middendorf: ¶ 0015, ¶ 0069-0070, ¶ 0088-0089 showing that retrieved parcel data is in shapefile format), and further wherein the remote server system calculates parcel dimensions for display on the geographic map (Middendorf: ¶ 0017, ¶ 0067-0068, ¶ 0076-0079 measurements calculated using the retrieved/extracted GIS data and displayed on map; see ¶ 0061 specifying computer 215 as a remote computer/server accessed via an application by a user computer 290)
Claim 10: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Middendorf does not explicitly teach, however, Sheridan teaches:
further operable to obtain, from a remote server system, a record of an environmental hazard on the land (Sheridan: ¶ 0031, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0045, ¶ 0051 showing historical claims data collected from remote data repository) and place a mark on the geographic map showing a location of the environmental hazard (Sheridan: Fig. 7, ¶ 0094-0095 showing records of previous flood claims, which can be indicated on the map as a layer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the collection and display of previous flood claims as taught by Sheridan in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 11: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 6. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the web services network provides the quantity of cloud computing resources in proportion to the quantity of parcel data being transformed
As seen in claim 1 above, the combination of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teaches that the web services network provides the quantity of cloud computing resource.
Middendorf further teaches executing an integration module to transform the parcel data into the parcel boundary lines as drawn on the map (Middendorf: as per ¶ 0058-0061, the requested data is used to carry out the functions of GIS application 210; ¶ 0104-0105 showing requested data is used to calculate and process the data into parcel boundaries and measurement segments, which as seen in Figs. 3-7, ¶ 0076-0078, ¶ 0083-0086 above is displayed as a plurality of real estate parcels with boundary lines and measurements along outer perimeter of the parcel boundaries) but Middendorf/Sheridan do not discuss adjusting cloud resources available based on processing needs (e.g. “in proportion to the quantity of parcel data being transformed”).
However, Fritz teaches scaling the number of allocated cloud storage and computing resources according to the required needs (Fritz: ¶ 0018-0023, ¶ 0032-0033, ¶ 0045, ¶ 0050 – see ¶ 0023 specifically showing “individual portions of the database may be scaled up or down (e.g., by a control plane 180) to make better use of computational and storage resources while permitting near-real-time ingestion and querying of spatial data. For example, the number of ingestion routers 110 may be dynamically increased in response to an increase in the volume of ingested data across one or more clients 190. As another example, additional storage resources for a data set of spatial data may be dynamically provisioned in response to an increase in the volume of ingested data in that data set. Similarly, resources may be downscaled at one or more stages of the spatial data lifecycle if the volume of data is observed to decrease”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the scaling of cloud resources up or down based on current requirements/demands of Fritz in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz (such that the web services network provides the quantity of cloud computing resources in proportion to the quantity of parcel data being transformed) with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 12: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Middendorf does not explicitly teach, however, Sheridan teaches:
wherein depicted real property information further includes owner information, or a link to the owner information, for at least one of the real estate parcels shown drawn onto the geographic map (Sheridan: ¶ 0095 “The additional information may include property details for the selected area 802 (addresses, owners, building descriptions, etc.)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the display of property information including owner information by Sheridan in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Middendorf does not explicitly teach, however, Sheridan teaches:
wherein the graphical user interface includes a search tool via which a user may enter search terms to inform what depicted real property information is depicted (Sheridan: ¶ 0046-0054 showing the user enters a user query through the user interface which is processed to generate query results /present visual information on the user interface)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the query and generation/display of results in the user interface as taught by Sheridan in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090142002 A1 to Middendorf et al. (Middendorf) in view of US 20180182041 A1 to Sheridan et al. (Sheridan), further in view of US 20230401223 A1 to Fritz et al. (Fritz), and further in view of US 20110276259 A1 to Nortrup et al. (Nortrup).
Claim 8: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz do not explicitly teach, however, Nortrup teaches:
further operable to obtain, from a remote server system, records of levels of cell tower activity and display activity levels on the geographic map based on the levels of cell tower activity (Nortrup: ¶ 0085-0092 showing obtaining cell tower positioning data represent cell phone location and movement activity, and displaying a congestion map based on the collected data; see ¶ 0082 showing user device running client application accessed the server through network wherein the server application provides the client application with the desired map)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination and display of the congestion map using cellphone/cell tower data of Nortrup in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to provide information useful to a user (Nortrup: ¶ 0079). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 8. With respect to the following limitations, Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz do not explicitly teach, however, Nortrup teaches:
wherein the remote server system transforms the levels of cell tower activity into an estimate of traffic levels on the map and causes the server system to display the estimated traffic levels on the geographic map (Nortrup: ¶ 0085-0092 showing obtaining cell tower positioning data represent cell phone location and movement activity, and displaying a congestion map representing traffic congestion on the collected data; see ¶ 0082 showing user device running client application accessed the server through network wherein the server application provides the client application with the desired map)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination and display of the congestion map using cellphone/cell tower data of Nortrup in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz/Nortrup with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090142002 A1 to Middendorf et al. (Middendorf) in view of US 20180182041 A1 to Sheridan et al. (Sheridan), further in view of US 20230401223 A1 to Fritz et al. (Fritz), and further in view of US 20240193886 A1 to Sadalgi et al. (Sadalgi).
Claim 13: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 12. With respect to the following limitation, Middendorf does not explicitly teach, however, Sheridan teaches:
wherein the instructions cause the server system to send user queries to, and receive the real property information from, a remote server system that maintains a parcel owner database (Sheridan: ¶ 0049-0052, ¶ 0087-0095 showing receiving user queries for properties, and generating user interface output information based on the queries, wherein as per ¶ 0095 includes owner information in the property details; and see in particular ¶ 0044 specifying “the front-end driver engine 140 may cause geospatial data to be displayed on the front-end UI to allow a user to interact with the information stored in the data repository 116. In one example, the front-end of the enhanced lead generation system 110 may be implemented as a web application that a user (e.g., insurance provider 102) accesses through a web browser running on external devices”), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the query and generation/display of results, including parcel owner information, in the user interface as taught by Sheridan in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With respect to the limitation:
further wherein the owner information is made available to a user of the device for an owner that has opted in to having their information shared on the device.
Sheridan, as seen above teaches owner information made available to the user of the device (Sheridan: ¶ 0044, ¶ 0049-0052, ¶ 0087-0095 as per limitation above), but Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz do not explicitly teach that it is for an owner that opted in to having their information shared. However, Sadalgi teaches an owner opting in to sharing information regarding their property (Sadalgi: ¶ 0152-0153). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the property owner prompt and choice to share information of Sadalgi in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that it enables “creating a digital representation of the property which would benefit him/her and future owners” (Sadalgi: ¶ 0153).
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090142002 A1 to Middendorf et al. (Middendorf) in view of US 20180182041 A1 to Sheridan et al. (Sheridan), further in view of US 20230401223 A1 to Fritz et al. (Fritz), and further in view of US 10482536 B1 to Doyle et al. (Doyle).
Claim 14: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 12. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the owner information accessible via the server system is filtered to exclude persons listed on a do-not call-registry or a do-not-disturb list
Sheridan, as seen above teaches owner information made available to the user of the device (Sheridan: ¶ 0044, ¶ 0049-0052, ¶ 0087-0095 as per limitation above), and further teaches that insurance agents may use the system to identify properties whose owners would be considered appropriate customers for flood insurance (Sheridan: ¶ 0070), i.e. identifying leads. Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz do not explicitly teach filtering the potential leads to exclude people on a do not call list. However, Doyle teaches that once generated, an insurance lead list may be filters to remove the information (e.g. name/address/phone number) of people who are on a do not call list (Doyle: Col. 16: 28-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the removal of personal information from a list of people based on a do not call list of Doyle in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090142002 A1 to Middendorf et al. (Middendorf) in view of US 20180182041 A1 to Sheridan et al. (Sheridan), further in view of US 20230401223 A1 to Fritz et al. (Fritz), and further in view of US 20020145617 A1 to Kennard et al. (Kennard).
Claim 16: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz do not explicitly teach, however, Kennard teaches:
further operable to depict, for at least one of the plurality of real estate parcels, information showing or linking to at least one: applicable zoning code; local demographic data; local climate zone or classification (Kennard: ¶ 0021 showing depicting, for a property and the surrounding area, local demographic data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the depiction of local demographic data for a property of Kennard in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to generate “a map that accurately depicts a selected geographic characteristic or quality at the site of selected real property and in the property's vicinity” (Kennard: ¶ 0011).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090142002 A1 to Middendorf et al. (Middendorf) in view of US 20180182041 A1 to Sheridan et al. (Sheridan), further in view of US 20230401223 A1 to Fritz et al. (Fritz), and further in view of US 20040183826 A1 to Taylor et al. (Taylor).
Claim 17: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz do not explicitly teach, however, Taylor teaches:
further operable to, for at least one of the plurality of real estate parcels, link a user to property records including one or more of a deed, a lien, a property tax rate, a recorded interest, and a mortgage (Taylor: ¶ 0010 “provide a prospective buyer, convention or meeting organizer, or other entity with an opportunity to view the objects within and around a subject property while also providing information, or links to information, regarding, for example, local mortgage loan rates, local mortgage lenders property taxes, property condition disclosures, utility companies and other information desired by a prospective buyer”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the link to property tax and mortgage information of Taylor in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “maximize the amount of information that can be obtained regarding a property and the surrounding community, while minimizing travel time and associated expense” (Taylor: ¶ 0010).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090142002 A1 to Middendorf et al. (Middendorf) in view of US 20180182041 A1 to Sheridan et al. (Sheridan), further in view of US 20230401223 A1 to Fritz et al. (Fritz), and further in view of US 20020062218 A1 to Pianin.
Claim 18: Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz do not explicitly teach, however, Pianin teaches:
further operable to provide a user with links to a service provider optionally selected from an architect, a land surveyor, an environmental studies firm (Pianin: ¶ 0129 sowing linking a user to an environmental firm information page), optionally searchable by an address of a selected parcel
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include providing environmental firm information as taught by Pianin in the real estate mapping system of Middendorf/Sheridan/Fritz, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Furthermore, it would also “enable users to track and complete their commercial real estate-related deals and allow users to monitor and maintain their commercial real estate portfolios in a more efficient and effective manner than currently available” (Pianin: ¶ 0009).
Conclusion
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