Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-12 recite a system (machine), Claims 13-17 recite a method (process), and Claim 18 recites a computer-readable medium (manufacture) and therefore fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
Referring to claims 1-18, the claims are directed to a manner of determining a rent estimate for a property based on the analysis of collected information, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts covered under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas.
The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
(Claim 1)
A system for estimating a final rent estimate (FRE) of a property, the system comprising: [a computing device] receives a dwelling input from a user, wherein the dwelling input comprises a property address, the number of bedrooms, and a type of dwelling; [and a remote server is coupled to the computing device through a network interface, wherein the remote server comprises: a non-transitory storage device storing: a set of executable routines; and a property database comprising] the multiple property location identifiers, wherein each of the property location identifier corresponds to the multiple property data, wherein each property data corresponds to a property address, a date of availability, an occupancy capacity, a build-up area data, a build-up year, and a rent value, wherein the property location identifier is associated with a grid rental index information that is derived, by using at least one strategy selected from: a mean rental value of each property located in a geological grid during a pre-set time period; a median rental value of each property located in the geological grid during the pre-set time period; and a predictive rental index, derived using a regression model, wherein the regression model utilizes at least one parameter selected from: a statistical historical sale of each rental property within the geological grid; at least one statistical historical transaction of each rental property of at least one adjacent geological grid; and a rental value of each geospatial properties of the geological grid; [and a microprocessor coupled to the non-transitory storage device, executing the set of routines to]: acquire the dwelling input from [the computing device];
map the property location to a geological grid and identify its adjacent geological grids;
analyse [the property database] to determine an initial rent estimate (IRE) based on each property located in the geological grid and each adjacent geological grid by performing a weighted linear interpolation, wherein a rental value contribution of each property is inversely proportional to a distance from the property location; identify the multiple comparable properties based on: the acquired dwelling input; at least one filter selected from: a spatial filter, a temporal filter, a configuration filter and a variance filter; including bounds relative to the IRE; the determined IRE; and when fewer than a preset minimum number (C) of comparable properties are identified, relaxing constraints in a predefined order comprising (a) including properties having a different number of bedrooms than the dwelling input, (b) widening the variance bounds relative to the IRE, and only thereafter expanding the search to nearest additional cities or neighborhood geological grids up to a maximum of three; calculate the FRE based on a rental value of the identified multiple comparable properties, wherein a rental value contribution of each comparable property is inversely proportional to a distance from the property location; and display [at the computing device], the calculated FRE.
(Claim 13)
A method for estimating a final rent estimate (FRE) of a property, wherein the method comprising: receiving, [at a computing device], a dwelling input from a user, wherein the dwelling input comprises a property address, the number of bedrooms, and a type of dwelling; and acquiring, [at a remote server], the dwelling input [from the computing device]; analysing,[ a property database] to determine an initial rent estimate (IRE) based on each property located in a geological grid and each adjacent geological grid, including mapping the property location to a geological grid and identifying its adjacent geological grids, and by performing a weighted linear interpolation, wherein a rental value contribution of each property is inversely proportional to a distance from the property location; identifying, the multiple comparable properties based on: the acquired dwelling input; at least one filter selected from: a spatial filter, a temporal filter, a configuration filter and a variance filter; including bounds relative to the IRE; the determined IRE; and when fewer than a preset minimum number (C) of comparable properties are identified, relaxing constraints in a predefined order comprising (a) including properties having a different number of bedrooms than the dwelling input, (b) widening the variance bounds relative to the IRE, and only thereafter expanding the search to nearest additional cities or neighborhood geological grids up to a maximum of three; calculating, the FRE based on a rental value of the identified multiple comparable properties, wherein a rental value contribution of each comparable property is inversely proportional to a distance from the property location; and displaying [at the computing device], the calculated FRE.
(Claim 18)
[A computer-readable medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions, the plurality of instructions when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to] perform operations for estimating a final rent estimate (FRE) of a property, the operations comprising: receiving, [at a computing device], a dwelling input from a user, wherein the dwelling input comprises: a property address, the number of bedrooms, and a type of dwelling; and acquiring, [at a remote server], the dwelling input from the computing device; analysing,[ a property database] to determine an initial rent estimate (IRE) based on each property located in a geological grid and each adjacent geological grid, including mapping the property location to a geological grid and identifying its adjacent geological grids, and by performing a weighted linear interpolation, wherein a rental value contribution of each property is inversely proportional to a distance from the property location; identifying, the multiple comparable properties based on at least one from: the acquired dwelling input; at least one filter selected from: a spatial filter, a temporal filter, a configuration filter and a variance filter; including bounds relative to the IRE; the determined IRE; and when fewer than a preset minimum number (C) of comparable properties are identified, relaxing constraints in a predefined order comprising (a) including properties having a different number of bedrooms than the dwelling input, (b) widening the variance bounds relative to the IRE, and only thereafter expanding the search to nearest additional cities or neighborhood geological grids up to a maximum of three; calculating, the FRE based on a rental value of the identified multiple comparable properties, wherein a rental value contribution of each comparable property is inversely proportional to a distance from the property location; and displaying [at the computing device], the calculated FRE.
Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea.
Here the claims are directed to concepts capable of being performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts directed to a manner of determining a rent estimate of a property. (See paragraphs 1-5).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in the human mind or pen and paper, it falls under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The examiner views the following as the additional elements:
A computing device. (See paragraph 33)
A remote server. (See paragraph 34)
Network interface. (See paragraph 81)
A non-transitory storage device. (See paragraph 108)
A set of executable routines. (See paragraph 34)
A property database. (See paragraph 34)
A microprocessor. (See paragraph 107)
A computer-readable medium. (See paragraphs 79-80)
A plurality of instructions. ((See paragraphs 79-80)
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they act to merely “apply” the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f))
The combination of these additional elements and/or results oriented steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)) Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 further define the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic microprocessor (See paragraph 107) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claims 2-3 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 4-9, 11, 15, and 17 further define the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic remote server (See paragraph 107) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claims 4-9, 11, 15, and 17 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 further define the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the generic remote server (See paragraph 107) and property database (See paragraph 34) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 10 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 12, 14, and 16 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Therefore claims 12, 14, and 16 are considered to be patent ineligible.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 2, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 8-11 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection the Examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea as the provided limitations (See Remarks pages 8-9) specify the data structures and constraints (grids and their adjacencies, IRE-anchored variance windows; ordered sorting keys; controlled relaxation path; capped geographic expansion) and the rule-based sequence that a computer executes to produce the FRE. According to Applicant the claims improve how a computer stores and processes data via specific structures and rules.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the amendments that Applicant argues cannot be performed in the human mind are further defining the abstract idea rather than additional elements considered in the Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis. The Examiner views the claims to be similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Examiner does not view the proffered limitations to be recited at a level of specificity to suggest the limitations cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The proffered improvements to how a computer stores and process data via specific structures and rules is an improvement from the Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the claims are improving the analysis of FRE computations and not improving the storage or processing because the grids as claimed the Examiner views as a concept a user can mentally picture or utilize pen and paper to determine/map information, and the rules for processing defining how a user would proceed processing the collected information in determining a FRE
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong 2 that the claims apply the solution through a technology centric-implementation that improves computer operation. According to Applicant through constraining computations to the mapped grid and its adjacent grids, and by weighting contributions by distances, the system bounds inputs and outputs and computes for a small neighborhood rather than scanning a corpus that provides an improvement to how the computer retrieves and combines geospatial records. Applicant further contends the two-stage pipeline of producing an IRE via distance-weighted interpolation across specified adjacent grids and the gate comparable selection by spatial/temporal/configuration constraints and variance bounds relative to the IRE, with structured relaxation only if a minimum number is unmet, then compute the FRE by distance-weighted aggregation. According to Applicant the pipeline addresses computer-specific problems including (scaling, query locality, constrained search spaces) rather than merely using a computer as a tool.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, viewing the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. (MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Further the Examiner reiterates how the steps proffered to provide an improvement to computer storage or processing the Examiner views these steps are a part of the recited abstract idea and do not constitute additional elements. The Examiner maintains that the improvements are to calculating an FRE and not to technology as presently claimed.
Applicant argues under Step 2B that the claims provide a non-conventional arrangement through the (i) grid-based partitioning with adjacent-grid processing (ii) distance-weighted interpolation to form an IRE; (iii) IRE-anchored multi-criteria comparable selection with variance bounds and structured relaxation; and (iv) distance- weighted computation of the FRE. This interplay-adjacency-bounded interpolation ->IRE-constrained comparable selection --distance-weighted FRE-is the source of the technical benefits (bounded data access; predictable latency; localized accuracy) and is not the conventional way AVMs select comps and price estimates. Applicant further contends that the Examiner does not cite Berkheimer evidence and the lack of prior art indicates the combination of additional elements is unconventional.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the limitations that Applicant proffers as being not well-understood routine conventional activity are a part of the identified abstract idea. The Examiner further does not view the claims provide a technical improvement but rather provides an improvement to the abstract idea through the manner of computing the FRE rather than providing a technical improvement. Further regarding the conventionality or lack of prior art the Examiner cites MPEP 2106.05:
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements.
Further regarding the lack of Berkheimer evidence, citing MPEP 2106.05
Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h): Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
In the instant case the Examiner identified the additional elements as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components in the Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis and carried their conclusion over for the Step 2B Analysis. The Examiner further notes the paragraphs of the Specification cited in the Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Examiner has maintained the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fleming (US 20190295196) -directed to a comparability of a subject property and each of a set of potential comparable properties.
Pangerl et al. (US 20200211131) – directed to generating rental rates.
Guggenmos et al. (US Patent No. 12,254,030) – directed to determining similarities between properties at a location using customized feature sets.
He et al. (US Patent No. 11,816,122) – directed to performing property valuation utilizing machine learning.
Treadwell et al. (US 20160027069) – directed to modeling appropriate comparables and evaluating appraisals where the subject property is a condominium property
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833. 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.
/M.J.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629