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 .
Detailed Action
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s filing of 11/21/2025.
The effective filing date of the present application is 08/29/2023.
Claims 1 – 11 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "108" and "110" have both been used to designate the database. Newly filed Fig 2 and newly amended paragraph discusses a store system 200 to include the database. However, this database is referenced incorrectly within Figure 2, as detailed, above. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the newly amended paragraph still includes an incorrect reference to database 108; while also referencing application unit 108. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10, recite a data structure of value vectors representing groups, categories, and features. This would seek to show a complex and dimensional-based method of data storage; a vector having magnitude and direction. However, this is not how data storage is defined within the instant application. A well understood definition within the art would be a traditional relational database managing date per a predefined schema. The Examiner has given weight to Applicant’s hierarchal data structure within the claims; further recited as a schema. However, nowhere is it disclosed that a vector structured database is used. Vector is not described anywhere within the disclosure, and the database is merely defined as including a unique schema 202. Further, the database is merely used to store data, not in a highly-dimensional manner, but as a mere component operating in its ordinary capacity for data storage. Accordingly, the use of value vectors purports to introduce new matter that was not described in the original disclosure.
Independent claim 1 recites a scoring unit. The only “unit” disclosed, in the Specification or figures, is the defined and illustrated app unit 108. Therefore, this recitation would seek to introduce a component not previously described and is considered new matter. This unit is further is used to normalize, multiply, and transform weightage values. This step would then be declarative of how real properties are scored; i.e., the formula or algorithm that defines scoring. However, the scoring step is merely referred to in a circular manner. The Specification discloses retrieving data, calculating a score, and communicating the score. It does not define the specialized mathematical functions (normalizing or multiplying) that the claims seek to employ. A step of transforming data can be reasonably interpreted to mean a broad range of manipulations, many of which may not relate to scoring. Therefore, the newly added scoring unit to normalize, multiply, and transform, the values, also leads to claim 1 as introducing matter which was not described in the Specification.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6 – 7, 9, and 11, which depend to the independent claims rejected above, and further reciting the same new matter, are also rejected based on these discrepancies.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 11/21/2025 have been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have only partially corrected the inaccuracies previously described; therefore, an objection to the Specification is included within this Office Action.
Applicant’s submittal of replacement drawings have brought to notice the use of incorrect reference numbers. A new objection to the drawings is included within this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 5 have rendered a previous objection as moot; therefore, this objection to claim 5 is withdrawn.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the claims recite a method and a system; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the claims set forth a method to score real properties based on groups, categories, and features of those real properties. This method describes evaluations, judgments, and opinions, of the properties in order to arrive at a scored value. Therefore, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Claim 1, contains the following elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A computer-implemented method of scoring real properties, comprising:
providing by a server computer a database stored in a non-transitory medium, of a hierarchical data structure of real property identities and three-tier weightage values vectors representing groups, categories and features of the real properties of the real property identities;
receiving a request by a server computer communicatively connected to the database, from an app of a user computer via a digital data network communicatively connected to the server computer;
retrieving by the server computer from the database the real property identities corresponding to the request;
executing a scoring unit of the server computer to normalize, multiply, and transform the weightage values vectors to respective scores;
generating by the server computer a score packet of the respective score scores; and
transmitting the score packet to the app of the user computer over the digital data network, for display by the app of the respective scores.
Claim 3, contains the following elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A computer-implemented method of scoring real properties, comprising:
storing an app program in a computer communicatively connected to a digital data network;
processing the app program by the computer;
receiving an input to the app program processed by the computer, the input representing a request for real property identities and scores for the real property identities;
communicating the input by the computer over the digital data network to a server computer, the server computer configured to communicatively connect to and control a database in a non-transitory medium, the database includes a hierarchical data structure of three-tier weightage values vectors for groups, categories, and features of the real properties;
receiving a response from the server computer over the digital data network, by the computer, the response includes real property identities and a score packet of scores for each of the real property identities; and
displaying the real property identities and scores in a display of the computer.
Claim 5, contains the following elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A system operable via communications over a digital data network, comprising:
a user computer communicatively connected to the digital data network, the user computer includes a processor, memory, and an input device;
an app program of the user computer stored in the memory for controlling the processor, the app program configured to receive user queries and transmit the user queries;
a server computer communicatively connected to the digital data network for receiving the user queries, the server computer includes a hierarchical weightage schema; and
a database of real property identities and weightage values vectors, communicatively connected to the server computer;
wherein the app program receives an input and communicates to the server computer the user query in respect of the input;
wherein the server computer searches the database and constructs a multi-dimensional scoring matrix, normalizes the weightage values vectors, and generates a structured score packet for each of the real property identities corresponding to the user query;
wherein the server computer sends to the computer the real property identities and the score packet for display by the computer.
Claim 8, contains the following elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A system, comprising:
a processor;
memory communicatively connected to the processor; wherein the memory contains instructions for controlling the processor for:
communicating over a digital data network communicatively connected to the processor;
processing an input interface output by the processor;
receiving an input to the input interface representing a request for real property identities and scores for the real property identities;
communicating the input by the processor over the digital data network to a server computer, the server computer configured to control a database stored in a non- transitory medium, the database of a hierarchical structure of real property identities and three-tier weightage value vectors representing groups, categories and features and to generate a score packet responsive to the input;
receiving a response of the score packet over the digital data network, by the processor, the response of the score packet processed by the processor includes real property identities and scores score for each of the real property identities; and
outputting the real property identities and scores by the processor.
Claim 10, contains the following elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A system, comprising:
a processor;
memory communicatively connected to the processor;
a database stored in a non-transitory medium, of a hierarchical schema of real property identities and weightage values vectors for groups, categories and features, the database is communicatively connected to the processor;
wherein the memory includes instructions for controlling the processor for:
receiving a request over a digital data network communicatively connected to the processor, from a processing device running an app program for querying the processor, the processing device communicatively connected to the digital data network;
retrieving from the database real property identities and weightage values vectors, responsive to the request;
generating a score packet of respective scores for each of the real property identities and weightage values vectors, by constructing a multi-dimensional matrix and normalizing the weightage values vectors; and
communicating the score packet of respective scores for each of the real property identities and weightage values vectors, over the digital data network to the processing device; wherein the processing device displays the real property identities and respective scores.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10, recite only the following additional elements:
computer-implemented;
a server computer; the user computer includes a processor, memory, and an input device; wherein the memory includes instructions for controlling the processor; a digital data network communicatively connected to the server computer;
a database stored in a non-transitory medium;
vectors; an app;
a scoring unit of the server computer;
an input interface output by the processor.
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 in their disclosure, at Specification, pages 4 – 5 and Figure 1. Applicant has added a vector that is further describes a computer environment. Because this vector is used to manage the database, it represents how data is retrieved, accessed, or stored. The Specification alludes to a generic usage when disclosing: “[t]he processor 116 of the server computer 114 controls the database 110 based on the request, to obtain property listings, calculate scores, and deliver listings and scores.” Thus, describing use of a computer in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. Therefore, these additional elements do not show integration into a practical application and the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
At Step 2B of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract ideas. As discussed above, the additional elements of (a server computer; the computer includes a processor, memory, and an input device; instructions for controlling the processor; a digital data network communicatively connected to the server computer; a database stored in a non-transitory medium; vectors; an app; a scoring unit of the server computer), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2, 4, 7, and 11, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1, 3, 5, and 10. Recitations to weightage values that correspond to personality types of dominant, compliant, influencing, and steady, and scoring and score packets, are refinements that form the basis of the evaluations and are associated with the opinion and judgments that result in the score. Further, the claims recite the generically described devices to receive, store, and transmit data. 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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 6 and 9 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 5 and 8. Recitations to the app receiving and outputting for display further links these elements to the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) as well as instructions, are directed to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer. This does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1 – 11 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 – 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden (US 2021/0295408), in view of Hou (2022/0005133).
Regarding claim 1, Hayden discloses: a computer-implemented method of scoring real properties, comprising: providing by a server computer a database stored in a non-transitory medium; (first, see [Abstract] where an evaluation tool for properties is disclosed; the system received data describing the property and then scores the property. Next, see [0050] detailing any non-transitory apparatus. [0034] includes the database connected, at [0028], over a network, at [0029]. See also Fig 1);
receiving a request by a server computer communicatively connected to the database, from an app of a user computer via a digital data network communicatively connected to the server computer; (see [0036] where an application receives communications from a client device, including, requests from client devices, at [0042]);
retrieving by the server computer from the database the real property identities corresponding to the request; ([0042] continues with, “the enterprise application 126 to determine the content, retrieve and incorporate data from the data storage device 208, format the content, and provide the content to the client devices 106.”).
Not disclosed by Hayden is:
a hierarchical data structure of real property identities and three-tier weightage values vectors representing for groups, categories and features of the real properties of the real property identities;
executing a scoring unit of the server computer to normalize, multiply, and transform the weightage values vectors to respective scores;
generating by the server computer a score packet of the respective scores; and
transmitting the score packet to the app of the user computer over the digital data network, for display by the app of the respective scores.
However, Hou discloses a property rating and categorization method and teaches or suggests the above elements.
Hou suggests a hierarchical data structure of real property identities and three-tier weightage values vectors representing for groups, categories and features of the real properties of the real property identities, when detailing a “data model describes the property attributes, categories and stats record information as well as their relationships”, at [Abstract]. See also [0028 -0029] teaching categories, groupings, and property types, arranged in a hierarchical structure. Key to Hou’s method is metric scores represented as vectors, each vector having weight factors presenting higher or heavier importance in a group, see [0069] As the Examiner noted above, the instant application does not disclose vectors as having significance, it merely defines this value vector as including a unique schema 202. The schema defines a “design”, “outdoor”, “size”, “structure”, thereby categorizing property attributes. Hou teaches these same property attributes at Fig 2. See also [0023 and 0039]. Therefore, Hou is deemed to disclose value vectors representing real properties as claimed herein). Figure 2 further teaches a data structure and relationships of property attributes stored in a database.
Hou also teaches: generating by the server computer a score packet of the respective scores; and transmitting the score packet to the app of the user computer over the digital data network, for display by the app of the respective scores; (see [Abstract] detailing a calculation engine that provides methods to generate metric scores and calculate property ratings. See also [0102] where a score packet (a collection of scores) is generated and displayed. See also Fig 7A and 7B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize vectorized (quantified) data storage, including scores calculated from that data, per the method of Hou, within Hayden’s property evaluation tool, because this provides a well-understood method for visualizing and comparing properties when compared to others. See Hou [0005].
Regarding claim 3, Hayden discloses a computer-implemented method of scoring real properties, comprising: storing an app program in a computer communicatively connected to a digital data network; (see [0117] disclosing a property evaluation application and/or component of the application server communicating with a server (e.g., the third-party server) of an MLS via an application programming interface to request data describing one or more properties. See also [0036] where an application receives communications from a client device, including, requests from client devices, at [0042]);
processing the app program by the computer; (see [0044] disclosing the property evaluation application includes computer logic executable by the processor on a client device to provide for user interaction and receive user input);
receiving an input to the app program processed by the computer, the input representing a request for real property identities and scores for the real property identities; (see [0044] disclosing the property evaluation application provides for user interaction and receive user input);
communicating the input by the computer over the digital data network to a server computer, the server computer configured to communicatively connect to and control a database in a non-transitory medium; (first, see [0050] detailing any non-transitory apparatus. [0034] includes the database connected, at [0028], over a network, at [0029]. See also Fig 1);
Not disclosed by Hayden is:
the database includes a hierarchical data structure of three-tier weightage values vectors for groups, categories, and features of the real properties;
receiving a response from the server computer over the digital data network, by the computer, the response includes real property identities and a score packet of scores score for each of the real property identities; and
displaying the real property identities and scores in a display of the computer.
However, Hou discloses a property rating and categorization method and teaches or suggests the above elements.
Hou suggests: the database includes a hierarchical data structure of three-tier weightage values vectors for groups, categories, and features of the real properties, when detailing a “data model describes the property attributes, categories and stats record information as well as their relationships”, at [Abstract]. See also [0028 -0029] teaching categories, groupings, and property types, arranged in a hierarchical structure. Key to Hou’s method is metric scores represented as vectors, each vector having weight factors presenting higher or heavier importance in a group, see [0069] As the Examiner noted above, the instant application does not disclose vectors as having significance, it merely defines this value vector as including a unique schema 202. The schema defines a “design”, “outdoor”, “size”, “structure”, thereby categorizing property attributes. Hou teaches these same property attributes at Fig 2. See also [0023 and 0039]. Therefore, Hou is deemed to disclose value vectors representing real properties as claimed herein). Figure 2 further teaches a data structure and relationships of property attributes stored in a database.
Hou also teaches: receiving a response from the server computer over the digital data network, by the computer, the response includes real property identities and a score packet of scores score for each of the real property identities; and displaying the real property identities and scores in a display of the computer; (First, see [0055] detailing the query engine which transforms a query request into a search result (the response). Next, see [Abstract] detailing a calculation engine that provides methods to generate metric scores and calculate property ratings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize vectorized (quantified) data storage, including scores calculated from that data, per the method of Hou, within Hayden’s property evaluation tool, because this provides a well-understood method for visualizing and comparing properties when compared to others. See Hou [0005].
Regarding claim 5, Hayden discloses: a system operable via communications over a digital data network, comprising: a user computer communicatively connected to the digital data network, the user computer includes a processor, memory, and an input device; an app program of the user computer stored in the memory for controlling the processor, the app program configured to receive user queries and transmit the user queries; (see [0029] detailing use a network; [0030] detailing a connected computer; [0047] detailing memory, and [Abstract] detailing inputting user queries);
a server computer communicatively connected to the digital data network for receiving the user queries; (at [0044] user interfaces allow for inputs received at the server);
wherein the app program receives an input and communicates to the server computer the user query in respect of the input; (see [0044] where a user interfaces allow for inputs received at the server);
wherein the server computer searches the database and constructs a multi-dimensional scoring matrix, normalizes the weightage values vectors,; (see [0054] detailing a multi-dimensional data storage schema, (table), comprised of rows and columns. At [0089] data normalization is suggested, among other calculations, to determine property scores).
Not disclosed by Hayden is:
a hierarchical weightage schema; and a database of real property identities and weightage values vectors;
wherein the server computer sends to the computer the real property identities and the score packet for display by the computer;
and generates a structured score packet for each of the real property identities corresponding to the user query.
However, Hou discloses a property rating and categorization method and teaches or suggests these elements.
First, Hou suggests: a hierarchical schema and value vectors, when detailing a “data model describes the property attributes, categories and stats record information as well as their relationships”, at [Abstract]. See also [0028 -0029] teaching categories, groupings, and property types, arranged in a hierarchical structure. Key to Hou’s method is metric scores represented as vectors, each vector having weight factors presenting higher or heavier importance in a group, see [0069] As the Examiner noted above, the instant application does not disclose vectors as having significance, it merely defines this value vector as including a unique schema 202. The schema defines a “design”, “outdoor”, “size”, “structure”, thereby categorizing property attributes. Hou teaches these same property attributes at Fig 2. See also [0023 and 0039]. Therefore, Hou is deemed to disclose value vectors representing real properties as claimed herein). Figure 2 further teaches a data structure and relationships of property attributes stored in a database. Lastly, Hou suggests a table structure - a schema – at [0103]. Note that Fig 2 and Fig 9 represent property categories according to a schema (best defined as an outline or model).
Lastly, Hou discloses: a structured score packet for each of the real property identities corresponding to the user query; (see [0102] where a score packet (a collection of scores) is generated and displayed. See also Fig 7A and 7B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize vectorized (quantified) data storage, including scores calculated from that data, per the method of Hou, within Hayden’s property evaluation tool, because this provides a well-understood method for visualizing and comparing properties when compared to others. See Hou [0005].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hayden and Hou discloses all the limitations of claim 5, above.
Not disclosed is a display of the user computer; wherein the real property identities and each of the respective score packet are received by the app program and respective scores for each of the real property identities are output by the app program in the display of the user computer.
However, Hou discloses a property rating and categorization method and teaches a score packet (a collection of scores) is generated and displayed, see [0102] . See also Fig 7A and 7B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize vectorized (quantified) data storage, including scores calculated from that data, per the method of Hou, within Hayden’s property evaluation tool, because this provides a well-understood method for visualizing and comparing properties when compared to others. See Hou [0005].
Regarding claim 8, Hayden discloses: a system, comprising: a processor; memory communicatively connected to the processor; wherein the memory contains instructions for controlling the processor for: communicating over a digital data network communicatively connected to the processor; processing an input interface output by the processor; (see [0014, 0029, 0041, 0042, and 0047-0049, detailing such a system. At [0053] an output device is detailed);
receiving an input to the input interface representing a request for real property identities and scores for the real property identities; (see [0117] disclosing a request related to property attributes).
Not disclosed is: the database of a hierarchical structure of real property identities and three-tier weightage value vectors representing groups, categories and features and to generate a score packet responsive to the input; receiving a response of the score packet over the digital data network, by the processor, the response of the score packet processed by the processor includes real property identities and scores score for each of the real property identities.
However, Hou discloses a property rating and categorization method and teaches or suggests these elements.
First, Hou suggests: a hierarchical schema and value vectors, when detailing a “data model describes the property attributes, categories and stats record information as well as their relationships”, at [Abstract]. See also [0028 -0029] teaching categories, groupings, and property types, arranged in a hierarchical structure. Key to Hou’s method is metric scores represented as vectors, each vector having weight factors presenting higher or heavier importance in a group, see [0069] As the Examiner noted above, the instant application does not disclose vectors as having significance, it merely defines this value vector as including a unique schema 202. The schema defines a “design”, “outdoor”, “size”, “structure”, thereby categorizing property attributes. Hou teaches these same property attributes at Fig 2. See also [0023 and 0039]. Therefore, Hou is deemed to disclose value vectors representing real properties as claimed herein). Figure 2 further teaches a data structure and relationships of property attributes stored in a database. Lastly, Hou suggests a table structure - a schema – at [0103]. Note that Fig 2 and Fig 9 represent property categories according to a schema (best defined as an outline or model).
Lastly, Hou discloses: a structured score packet for each of the real property identities corresponding to the user query; (see [0102] where a score packet (a collection of scores) is generated and displayed. See also Fig 7A and 7B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize vectorized (quantified) data storage, including scores calculated from that data, per the method of Hou, within Hayden’s property evaluation tool, because this provides a well-understood method for visualizing and comparing properties when compared to others. See Hou [0005].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hayden and Hou discloses all the limitations of claim 8, above.
Further disclosed by Hayden is: a display communicatively connected to the processor; wherein the memory includes instructions for outputting the real property identities and scores in the display; (see [0044], where the property evaluation application presents information to user via a display. See also [0042], where it is disclosed the web server may retrieve and incorporate data from the data storage device, format the content, and provide the content to the client devices).
Regarding claim 10, Hayden discloses: a system, comprising: a processor; memory communicatively connected to the processor; a database stored in anon-transitory medium; the database is communicatively connected to the processor; wherein the memory includes instructions for controlling the processor; from a processing device running an app program for querying the processor, the processing device communicatively connected to the digital data network; (see [0014, 0029, 0041, 0042, and 0047-0049, detailing such a system.
Not disclosed is: retrieving from the database real property identities and weightage values vectors, responsive to the request; generating a score packet of respective scores for each of the real property identities and weightage values vectors, by constructing a multi-dimensional matrix and normalizing the weightage values vectors.
However, Hou discloses a property rating and categorization method and teaches or suggests these elements.
First, Hou suggests: a hierarchical schema and value vectors, when detailing a “data model describes the property attributes, categories and stats record information as well as their relationships”, at [Abstract]. See also [0028 -0029] teaching categories, groupings, and property types, arranged in a hierarchical structure. Key to Hou’s method is metric scores represented as vectors, each vector having weight factors presenting higher or heavier importance in a group, see [0069] As the Examiner noted above, the instant application does not disclose vectors as having significance, it merely defines this value vector as including a unique schema 202. The schema defines a “design”, “outdoor”, “size”, “structure”, thereby categorizing property attributes. Hou teaches these same property attributes at Fig 2. See also [0023 and 0039]. Therefore, Hou is deemed to disclose value vectors representing real properties as claimed herein). Figure 2 further teaches a data structure and relationships of property attributes stored in a database. Lastly, Hou suggests a table structure - a schema – at [0103]. Note that Fig 2 and Fig 9 represent property categories according to a schema (best defined as an outline or model).
Lastly, Hou discloses: a structured score packet for each of the real property identities corresponding to the user query; (see [0102] where a score packet (a collection of scores) is generated and displayed. See also Fig 7A and 7B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize vectorized (quantified) data storage, including scores calculated from that data, per the method of Hou, within Hayden’s property evaluation tool, because this provides a well-understood method for visualizing and comparing properties when compared to others. See Hou [0005].
Claims 2, 4, 7, and 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden, in view of Hou, further in view of Golding (US 2021/0288926).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 7, and 11, combination of Hayden and Hou discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 6, and 10, above.
Not disclosed is weightage value vectors include correspondence to personality types of dominant, compliant, influencing, and steady.
However, Golding discloses a method training based on personality profiles and suggests modelling using the five-factor model, which includes the traits of “Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless)”; and further teaches the use of the DISC model; wherein the DISC model includes the four traits of dominance (D), influence (I), steadiness (S), and conscientiousness (C).
Further regarding claim 2, is the reliance on a value vector that corresponds to personality types. As noted earlier in this Office Action, the use of a vector to define these aspects would be the introduction of new matter. Applicant has not disclosed any of vector values when discussing personality types; Applicant has merely alluded to them. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the prior art of Golding teaches an analogous use of personality types and maintains this art as teaching and suggesting these limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the personality types, such as: dominant, compliant, influencing, and steady, per the method of Golding, within Hayden’s method for property data aggregation and evaluation, because this is a known technique to obtain and supply the person with data that is most relevant to that person’s interests. By generating results that are aligned with the person’s traits, better results may be obtained. Golding teaches that identifying a personality trait of a user allows for communicate with the user based on those personality traits. See [0014].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 1 – 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 10. Applicant argues the claims, as amended, recite specific technological solutions to problems arising in digital MLS-based property evaluations. Further, Applicant argues allowability when analyzed at Step 2A, Prong One, and Prong Two. See pages 11 – 12. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
First, Applicant points to various elements within the instant claims that do not have written description support within the disclosure. Applicant has not described a weighted vector value that would represent groups, categories, and features, as needed. As detailed above, a vector for data storage is not disclosed within the disclosure that would purport to show hierarchical structure or represent magnitude and direction of data. Applicant’s Specification merely alludes to different storage of data (locations) based on these different groups. The database employed is generically defined and at best is instructions to use a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data).
Applicant adds a scoring unit to normalize, multiply, and transform weightage values within the claims. As above, these recitations do not add any limiting elements to the claims because they too, are not disclosed. The Specification merely refers to this method step in a circular manner. The Specification discloses retrieving data, calculating a score, and communicating the score. It does not define the specialized mathematical functions (normalizing or multiplying) that the claims seek to employ. Therefore, the newly added scoring unit to normalize, multiply, and transform, the values, also leads to the amended claims as introducing matter which was not described in the Specification. The Examiner has nevertheless searched for prior art that discloses a hierarchical data structure as well the claimed calculation steps. Newly cited prior art (Hou) discloses a property scoring method that uses vector values in a way that is best interpreted to represent Applicant’s definition. New rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are included within this Office Action in support of the Examiner’s conclusions. .Further remarks to Applicant’s arguments continue.
Regarding Applicant’s argument about analysis at Prong One, the Examiner points to the discussion above, detailing how the amened claims set forth a method to score real properties based on groups, categories, and features of those real properties. The Examiner maintains that this describes evaluations, judgments, and opinions, of the properties in order to arrive at a scored value. Therefore, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Similarly, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant that at Prong Two, the claims integrate into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant, Analysis at Prong Two requires the use of the considerations identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). As noted above, the additional elements in the claims recite: computer-implemented; a server computer; the user computer includes a processor, memory, and an input device; wherein the memory includes instructions for controlling the processor; a digital data network communicatively connected to the server computer; a database stored in a non-transitory medium; vectors; an app; a scoring unit of the server computer; an input interface output by the processor.
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 in their disclosure, at Specification, pages 4 – 5 and Figure 1. Applicant has added a vector that is further describes a computer environment. Because this vector is used to manage the database, it represents how data is retrieved, accessed, or stored. The Specification alludes to a generic usage when disclosing: “[t]he processor 116 of the server computer 114 controls the database 110 based on the request, to obtain property listings, calculate scores, and deliver listings and scores.” Thus, describing use of a computer in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. Therefore, these additional elements do not show integration into a practical application and the claims are directed to the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant also argues analysis under Step 2B. See page 12. Applicant points to a non-conventional three-tier structure and asserts Hayden does not suggest this architecture. This argument is misplaced and not persuasive.
First, at Step 2B of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract ideas. As discussed above, the additional elements of (a server computer; the computer includes a processor, memory, and an input device; instructions for controlling the processor; a digital data network communicatively connected to the server computer; a database stored in a non-transitory medium; vectors; an app; a scoring unit of the server computer), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Second, “[n]or is it enough for subject matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.” See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012). “The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.” SAP AMERICA, INC. v. INVESTPIC, LLC 3. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant’s final argument discusses rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See pages 13 – 14. In view of the amendments to the claims, the Examiner’s remarks as to non-supported disclosure for these amended elements, and in view of further research and new rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 within this Office Action, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cozine discloses a method for transforming property data into data segments for modelling systems.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629