DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 9 to a system (i.e., a machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
storing credential information associated with a borrower, the credential information comprising a unique borrower identification code linked to a guaranteed mortgage pre-approval;
receiving a natural language input comprising a purchase offer for a property, the purchase offer further comprising:
offer terms including at least a purchase price;
retrieving a guaranteed mortgage pre-approval issued by the lender, comprising:
an encoded loan approval amount,
an expiration condition, and
a unique guaranteed pre-approval identification code linked to the unique borrower identification code;
binding the purchase offer to the guaranteed mortgage pre-approval by recording a transaction that associates the purchase offer and links the purchase offer to a record for a seller listing of the property; and
transmitting a confirmation message, the confirmation message indicating that the purchase offer has been immutably linked to the guaranteed mortgage pre-approval, wherein the linking recorded enables (i) determining other offers made using the guaranteed mortgage pre-approval, and (ii) determining other offers associated with the seller listing;
receiving a seller command to accept the purchase offer;
recording an acceptance record associated with the seller listing and the transaction that links the purchase offer to the guaranteed mortgage pre-approval;
responsive to recording the acceptance record, automatically revoking any other purchase offers linked to the guaranteed mortgage pre-approval; and
responsive to recording the acceptance record, automatically rejecting any other pending purchase offers linked to the seller listing.
The abstract idea of claim 9 is:
receive a natural language purchase offer for a property;
parse the purchase offer to identify offer terms;
retrieve a guaranteed mortgage pre-approval comprising (i) an encoded loan approval amount, (ii) an expiration condition, and (iii) a unique guaranteed pre-approval token identification code linked to a unique borrower identification;
generate a transaction that associates the purchase offer and links the purchase offer to a seller listing record for the property; and
output a confirmation that the purchase offer is immutably linked to the guaranteed mortgage pre-approval,
receive a seller command to accept the purchase offer,
record an acceptance record associated with the seller listing record and the transaction that links the purchase offer to the guaranteed mortgage pre-approval,
responsive to recording the acceptance record, automatically revoke any other purchase offers linked to the guaranteed mortgage pre-approval, and
responsive to recording the acceptance record, automatically reject any other pending purchase offers linked to the seller listing record.
The abstract idea steps italicized above relate to real estate transactions between parties, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above relate to the rules or instructions pertaining to conducting a real estate transaction, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: computer-implemented; initializing, by a computing system processor, a real-estate transaction application coupled to a distributed ledger-based data store; by the processor; via a conversational interface, rendered on a client application of a first user device; the guaranteed mortgage pre-approval being represented as a non-fungible token (NFT) stored in the distributed ledger-based data store; token; NFT; blockchain; in the distributed ledger; by the processor via the conversational interface; in the distributed ledger-based data store.
Claim 9 recites the following additional elements: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions; render a conversational interface on a client device; via the conversational interface; represented as a non-fungible token (NFT); NFT; blockchain; from a distributed ledger; in the distributed ledger.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements, as seen in Fig. 6 of applicant’s specification as filed, for example, along with the corresponding description of the figure in the specification.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 further narrow the abstract idea. This narrowing of the abstract idea, in conjunction with any further additional elements (claims 3 and 11: a smart contract), whether viewed alone or in combination, is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more, given that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and simply being applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 2/26/26 have been carefully considered. The headings and page numbers that follow correspond to those used by applicant.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant offers (brackets indicate portions of response omitted for brevity):
For purposes of advancing prosecution and to avoid any dispute about Step 2A Prong One, Applicant assumes, arguendo, that the Examiner's identified "abstract idea" characterization is maintained. Eligibility therefore turns on whether the claim integrates any such idea into a practical application under Prong Two, and if needed, whether the claim recites significantly more under Step 2B. […]
The Office Action concludes the additional elements are "generic," recited at a high level, and amount to "apply it." The Office Action further states Applicant has not shown "details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished," and has not provided an "improvement to technology or a technical field." Applicant's current amendments directly address that critique by reciting a specific distributed-ledger control mechanism that enforces a ledger-consistent state transition for a scarce authorization artifact (the guaranteed pre-approval NFT) when a seller accepts an offer.
As amended, claim 1 does not merely "record" a linkage between an offer and a token. It requires: […]
This is a concrete, rules-driven ledger state-transition mechanism. It is the "how." It is also the technical point of novelty and practical application: the system enforces atomicity and prevents conflicting commitments of the same authorization token across multiple offers and listings by using an acceptance-triggered revocation and rejection workflow recorded on, and enforced through, the distributed ledger.
That is not "extra-solution activity." It is not merely displaying or reporting information. It is not "doing mortgages online." It is a ledger-integrity constraint and an automated conflict-resolution mechanism implemented through specific ledger recordation and state changes. The Office Action's "apply it" rationale is directed to claims that recite only a desired result without the mechanism. The amended claims now recite the mechanism.
The Examiner also frames the additional elements as merely "instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer" and "nothing more than a generic computing system." Applicant respectfully disagrees because the ordered combination imposes a non-generic, ledger-enforced exclusivity and conflict-resolution rule tied to (i) a seller listing record, (ii) a specific NFT representing the guaranteed pre-approval, and (iii) a ledger-recorded acceptance event that triggers automatic revocation and rejection. This architecture is a practical application because it changes how the distributed-ledger system manages transaction state in the presence of competing offers and a scarce authorization token.
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong Two, the amended claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, and the §101 rejection should be withdrawn. […]
Even if the Office Action maintains that Prong Two is not satisfied, the amended claims recite significantly more under Step 2B for the same reason. The Office Action states it carries over its Prong Two analysis and concludes there is no inventive concept. Here, the inventive concept is the ordered combination that enforces ledger- consistent transaction state transitions via an acceptance-triggered automatic revocation and rejection mechanism recorded on the distributed ledger and tied to the guaranteed pre-approval NFT and the seller listing record.
This is not merely narrowing an abstract idea. It is a specific technological solution to a concrete technical problem in distributed-ledger transaction state management: preventing conflicting commitments (double-pledge and double-spend type failures) of the same authorization artifact across multiple concurrent transactions, while also resolving competing transactions for the same listing through ledger-recorded events and automated state transitions. The claims therefore recite significantly more than any alleged judicial exception, and the §101 rejection should be withdrawn.
With respect to applicant’s arguments concerning the claimed invention being a “concrete, rules-driven ledger state-transition mechanism” that describes “specific distributed-ledger control mechanism that enforces a ledger-consistent state transition for a scarce authorization artifact,” resulting in a change “how the distributed-ledger system manages transaction state in the presence of competing offers and a scarce authorization token,” examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner’s position is that the claims recite a clear abstract idea, one that represents certain methods of organizing human activity.
The abstract idea of the claimed invention includes (claim 1 being representative): 1) storing credential information; 2) receiving a purchase offer for a property; 3) retrieving a guaranteed mortgage pre-approval issued by the lender; 4) binding the purchase offer to the guaranteed mortgage pre-approval by recording a transaction; 5) transmitting a confirmation message; 6) receiving a command to accept the purchase offer; 7) recording an acceptance record; 8) responsive to recording the acceptance record, automatically revoking any other purchase offers linked to the guaranteed mortgage pre-approval; and 9) responsive to recording the acceptance record, automatically rejecting any other pending purchase offers linked to the seller listing.
There’s nothing inherently technical or complex about these steps, which may be performed by individuals conducting a real estate transaction process or the management of said process.
Contrary to applicant’s assertion, examiner has found no evidence of an improvement to the technology via an ordered combination. Instead, applicant has recited additional elements that are generic computers or machinery, claimed in a results-oriented manner, and simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear, however, that simply reciting the idea of a solution or outcome, as opposed to the details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, is equivalent to “apply it”:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
[…]
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, 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). Similarly, "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). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
In other words, applicant has not provided for any improvement to technology or a technical field; instead, applicant is simply using generically described machinery to facilitate the preapproval process. While applicant may potentially arrive at an improved abstract idea, this is not the same as an improvement to the technology.
With respect to applicant’s remarks concerning Step 2B, examiner reiterates that the conclusion was informed by MPEP 2106.05, subsection II, which states:
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). (Examiner’s highlight.)
As seen in the second bullet point above, examiner “carried over” the conclusion from Step 2A Prong Two, where it was determined that the additional elements, whether viewed alone or in combination, do no more than facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20170330296, which teaches: Track Your Closing is an invention that enables Home Sellers and Home Buyers to track the statuses of pre-closing steps in a real estate transaction and to learn of updates as they happen in real time. Track Your Closing enlists the Home Seller's and Home Buyer's respective attorneys to electronically input data as it becomes available. This data includes information collected for closing documents, statuses on pre-closing activities, and progress of transaction timelines. Home Sellers and Home Buyers make elections for the information, pre-closing activities, and transaction timelines for which they want notification. Track Your Closing then pushes this data and provides real time notifications to Home Buyers and Sellers of the status of any and all matters of which they elect to be kept aware. Track Your Closing's availability on mobile devices means information can be input and statuses and updates received at changing locations.
US 20210012443, which teaches: A system and method for on-line management of real estate purchase, renovation and sale transactions via a blockchain is described. The system includes a shared database configured to store blockchain information and input devices configured to allow renovators, lenders, vendors and inspectors to record aspects of the purchase, renovation and sale of the real estate in the blockchain.
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 JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 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 at (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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights