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 Status
Claims 1-16 are cancelled.
Claims 17-18 remain pending and stand rejection.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to restricting access to the property database such that no seller arrangement can access the identification information of any properties of any other seller arrangement the facilitator arrangement, the Examiner notes the Smith teaches where properties may be placed in an initial “hold state in the database” that is distinct from a for-sale state (e.g., 0008, 0010). Properties in the "hold" state may be evaluated by the facilitator arrangement 16, but not otherwise listed as being available for engagement (see: 0036), and are ”totally confidential” before being moved to the for-sale state (see: 0039-0040). This speaks specifically to restricting access to the database (which includes restricting any of the hold state and/or confidential information) from other seller arrangements. This also appears to correlate to the current Specification, most notably 0010, 0012, 0046-0047.
Notably, Smith also teaches “restricting further participants from accessing or removing, from information available to further participants, at least some information for the selected for-sale property”, the “information available” including identification information and the “further participants” corresponding to “other seller arrangements”. This likewise correlates to paragraph 0014 of the current Specification.
With respect to the facilitator arrangement providing a portal displaying to the buyer arrangement one or more properties having asset base criteria matching the acquisition criteria, wherein the providing step includes displaying on the portal the performance information for each of the properties of each of the seller arrangements but not displaying identification information for any of the properties of any of the seller arrangement, the Examienr initially notes that Smith discloses both a “portal” and a “page” (e.g., 0056, 0061-0062), which can be understood as a portal (see also: Fig. 18-21).
Furthermore, 0042-0043 of Smith discloses that “at least a portion of the confidential information typically comprises information not having been included in the details previously sent to the buyer arrangement and seller arrangement”, thus indicating that the confidential information (i.e., identification information) was not provided. Fig. 18- depicts a portal/page that displays property information including performance information such as “CAP”, while 0027 also teaches other performance information (e.g., NOI's (net operating incomes), cap (capitalization) rates, electronic property operating data (EPOD), EPOS-prop operating statements, cash flow projections, et al.). As can also be seen from Fig. 18-21, identification information of the property is not provided, such as the property address or other confidential, access restricted information (see again: 0043; see Specification: 0032, 0050). Thus, Smith provides the buyer with a portal (e.g., portal, page), the portal displays performance information (e.g., CAP, etc.) while not displaying identification information (e.g., address, other confidential information that is provided only subsequent to engagement).
Moreover, 0027, 0042-0043 and Fig. 18-21 of Smith parallels 0032, 0050-0051 and Fig. 18-21 of the current Specification.
Accordingly, Smith is understood to anticipate the facilitator arrangement providing a portal displaying to the buyer arrangement one or more properties having asset base criteria matching the acquisition criteria, wherein the providing step includes displaying on the portal the performance information for each of the properties of each of the seller arrangements but not displaying identification information for any of the properties of any of the seller arrangement.
As an additional comment on the amended preamble, claim 17 has been amended to recite “A method for improving the efficiency of a real estate transaction computer program product”. The body of the claim does not set forth steps for improving the efficiency of a computer program product itself. Instead, the body of the claim is directed to the procedure for performing real-estate transactions, presumably more efficiently. The recited computer program product is not otherwise integrated into the method as the recited steps fail to set forth any use of the computer program product or otherwise establish a nexus between the steps performed and the computer program product, instead relying on other components that bear no relation to the computer program product. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction (see: MPEP 2111.02 (II)). Accordingly, the statement in the preamble “for improving the efficiency of a…computer program product” is of little significance to claim construction because the body of the claim speaks only to arguably improving the efficiency of the real estate transaction itself, rather than the computer program product.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With initial regard to the amended preamble of “improving the efficiency of a real estate transaction computer program product”, nothing of record indicates that the invention of the current application intends to improve the operation of a computer program product itself. While the claimed invention may result in an improved process for real estate transactions, the amendments are little more than a draftsman’s technique asserting only in a conclusory manner that the claims provide an improvement to the computer itself or another technology or technical field. Contrary to such improvements to, the improvement manifested by the invention is to the abstract, commercial process of performing real-estate transactions and is merely applied on generic computer technology.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments concerning Prong 2 the Examiner disagrees. The claims now recite restricting access to a database of information (e.g., identification information of properties of other sellers), and preventing display of certain information to a buyer (e.g., identification information of properties). Neither the claims nor the specification provide any specific technical procedure for restricting or preventing access to the data, nor do they specify how the portal operates to not display identification data other than merely stating that such information has not been displayed. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. The current invention bears no semblance to the decisions in Enfish or Desjardins because each of those decisions relied up the clear achievement of an improvement in specific technologies or technical fields. The current application does not achieve such improvements, instead (arguably) improving upon the abstract idea itself through the mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computing components. Moreover, each of the aforementioned decisions relied up specific disclosure of a technical problem that was achieved by the claimed invention. No such technical problem is addressed by the current invention, nor does the disclosure provide evidence beyond a conclusory statement that such improvements might be achieved.
A similar response is appropriate to Applicant’s arguments under Step 2B and concerning Bascom. The focus of the court was the installation of the filtering tool at a specific location, which represented a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces" resulting in a technical improvement. The claims at issue, nor Applicant’s specification, purport to offer a “non-conventional” arrangement of components like that of Bascom. Instead, the claims at issue recite conventional computing components arranged in a conventional manner and used to implement the abstract idea of facilitating real-estate transactions. Bascom further emphasized that the claims – in light of their unconventional arrangement and technical improvement – represented a technology-based solution, not an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components. Here again, the Examiner emphasizes that the current disclosure does not support a comparison to Bascom.
For at least the reasons above, the claims as amended remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Interpretation – Claim terms
An arrangement: processing elements such as a laptop computer, desktop computer, server computer, or the like; or, portable devices such as one or more of a mobile telephone, portable digital assistant (PDA), pager or the like (see: Specification: 0024).
The limitations reciting the facilitator arrangement appear to recite steps performed by the facilitator arrangement, and will be interpreted as such (e.g., “a facilitator arrangement maintaining…” is understood as “maintaining by a facilitator arrangement…”).
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 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 17-18, claims 17-18 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 17 as representative for claims 17-18, claim 17 recites the following method:
maintaining information associated with a real-estate portfolio of a plurality of seller including one or more entries representing properties of the sellers having asset base criteria, the asset base criteria including performance information for each of the properties of the sellers and identification information for the properties of the seller arrangements;
restricting access such that no seller can access identification information of any properties of other sellers
maintaining information associated with a buyer including one or more entries representing acquisition criteria of the buyer for one or more properties;
displaying to the buyer one or more properties having asset base criteria matching the acquisition criteria, wherein providing step includes displaying the performance information for each of the properties of each of the sellers but not displaying identification information for any of the properties of any of the sellers;
facilitating engagement between one or more of the sellers and the buyer to negotiate a sale or exchange of the one or more properties having asset base criteria matching the acquisition only after the buyer has been displayed the performance for each of the properties of each of the sellers but has not been displayed the identification information for any of the properties of any of the sellers.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions and/or fundamental economic principals or practices (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because the claims set forth and/or describe facilitating a real-estate transaction by facilitating negotiation between one or more sellers and a buyer. This represents the performance of a marketing and/or sales activity, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. This also describes concepts relating to the economy and commerce that represent fundamental economic practices, which also fall under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 17 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including:
a computer program product,
a facilitator arrangement,
a property database
a seller arrangement,
a buyer database,
a buyer arrangement, and,
a portal.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 17 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 17, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory, and/or
electronic recordkeeping.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 17 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent 18, claim 18 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 8 and in claim 16 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 18 is rejected under at least similar rationale as claim 8 and claim 16, and is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2007/0214073).
Regarding claim 17, Smith discloses a method for improving the efficiency of a real estate transaction computer program product comprising:
a facilitator arrangement (e.g., Fig. 1 (16)) maintaining a property database (e.g., “property database”) including information associated with a real-estate portfolio of a plurality of seller arrangements, the database including one or more entries representing properties of the seller arrangement having asset base criteria, the asset base criteria including performance information for each of the properties of the seller arrangement and identification information for each of the properties of each of the seller arrangement (see: 0008, 0024, 0029, 0037, 0050, 0058, 0066, Fig. 1 (30));
restricting access to the property database such that no seller arrangement can access the identification information of any properties of any other seller arrangement the facilitator arrangement (see: 0008, 0010, 0036, 0046-0047);
Note: see more detailed explanation above under Response to Arguments.
the facilitator arrangement maintaining a buyer database (e.g., “buyer database”) including information associated with a buyer arrangement, the buyer database including one or more entries representing acquisition criteria for one or more properties (see: 0024, 0029, 0037);
the facilitator arrangement providing a portal (see: 0056, 0061-0062, Fig. 18-21) displaying to the buyer arrangement one or more properties having asset base criteria matching the acquisition criteria, wherein the providing step includes displaying on the portal the performance information for each of the properties of each of the seller arrangements but not displaying identification information for any of the properties of any of the seller arrangement (see: 0042-0043 (at least a portion of the confidential information typically comprises information not having been included in the details previously sent to the buyer arrangement and seller arrangement), 0056, 0061-0062, Fig. 3A (34), Fig. 18-22);
Note: details are provided to the buyer/seller arrangements, but certain portions of the data are not provided until after a non-disclosure, non-circumvent agreement is provided. See the more detailed explanation above under Response to Arguments.
the facilitator arrangement facilitating engagement between one or more of the seller arrangements and the buyer arrangement to negotiate a sale or exchange of the one or more properties having asset base criteria matching the acquisition only after the buyer arrangement has been displayed the performance for each of the properties of each of the seller arrangements but has not been displayed the identification information for any of the properties of any of the seller arrangements (see: 0045-0046, 0053, 0055, Fig. 3A).
Note: the engagement for negotiation occurs only after the initiation provisioning of the performance data sans the identification data.
18. A method according to Claim 17, wherein the performance information comprises information selected from the group consisting of property type, region, price range and capitalization rate (see: 0028, 0037, Fig. 12-13B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PTO form 892-U discusses disintermediating the flow of listings to the big portals through exclusive content, thereby disrupting operation of the big portals as a result of off-market activity (see: “The Rise of Exclusive Content”, and “Case Study” sections).
Van Dyke (US 11232500 B1) discloses a system for assisting in FSBO property sales including assigning a support team after matching buyers and sellers to facilitate the execution of a transaction (see: abstract, Fig. 3A, Fig. 4).
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 WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619