Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
(Claim 21) “a communication service… a partner service … and a phone system”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function (See paragraphs 82, 126, 222, 224, 226, and 228), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 21-40 recite a system (machine) and therefore fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
The claims as a whole recites a system for organizing the claiming of a real-estate lead to for professionals, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts for Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
[A computer-implemented lead-management system for] matching real-estate professionals to a potential buyer, [the system comprising: a communication service configured to] orchestrate a competition for a referral to the potential buyer between a plurality of matched real-estate professionals;
[a communications store coupled to the communication service;]
[a partner service configured to] match the potential buyer with the plurality of real estate professionals;
[a partner store coupled to the partner service;]
[a phone system configured for] enabling a first of the plurality of real-estate professionals to claim the referral [through an interactive voice response system configured to] assign the referral to a first-responding real-estate professional;
[wherein the communication service is configured to] create a contact list [for a dialer] based on the plurality of matched real-estate professionals selected for the competition;
[wherein the interactive voice response system is configured to] receive a claim input from a real-estate professional and write a first-responding real-estate professional to the call queue for a warm transfer to the potential buyer;
[wherein a connection handler is configured to call the communication service and] indicate the first-responding real-estate professional claiming the referral;
[a push-communications API coupled to the communication service configured to] enable a second of the plurality of real-estate professionals to claim the referral [by activating a hyperlink included in a push communication sent to a partner application];
[and a scripter module of the phone system configured, upon a potential borrower answering a call dialed by the dialer, to] populate a script with sales-lead data for the potential borrower, wherein the script is configured for use to determine a real estate buying status of the potential buyer.
Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea.
Here the claims recite concepts covering managing personal behavior (following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. Additionally, the claims recite concepts covering commercial or legal interactions (business relations) but for the recitation of generic computing components. In the present application the concepts reciting a manner of organizing the claiming of a real-estate lead for professionals. (See paragraphs 3 and 81).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in commercial or legal interactions or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people it falls under the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The Examiner views the following as the additional elements:
Lead-management system. (See paragraph 142 of the Specification).
Computer-implemented. (See paragraph 107)
A communication service. (See paragraphs 222, 224, 226, and 228 of the Specification.)
A communications store. (See paragraph 222 of the Specification.)
A partner service. (See paragraph 222 of the Specification.)
A partner store. (See paragraph 222 of the Specification.)
A phone system configured for interactive communications. (See paragraph 126 of the Specification.)
A push-communications API. (See paragraphs 224 and 228 of the Specification.)
An interactive voice response system. (See paragraph 223 of the Specification.)
A partner application. (See paragraphs 224 and 228 of the Specification.)
A scripter module. (See paragraphs 131 and 141 of the Specification.)
Dialer. (See paragraph 126 of the Specification)
A connection handler. (See paragraph 226 of the Specification)
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they act to merely “apply” the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Referring to “activating a hyperlink included in push communication” and “wherein a connection handler is configured to call the communication service” (See paragraphs 169, 224, 226, and 228) the Examiner views as a results-oriented solution lacking details and therefore equivalent to merely apply it. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f).)
The combination of these additional elements and/or results oriented steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See Id.)
Referring to “upon a potential borrower answering a call dialed by the dialer”, the Examiner views as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use (communications via a phone system including a dialer) in which to apply the recited abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 (h).
Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method and system that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Further referring to “upon a potential borrower answering a call dialed by the dialer”, the Examiner views as well-understood routine conventional activity in view of the Specification (See paragraphs 131 and 157). Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 22 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic partner service (See paragraph 222) and partner store (See paragraph 222) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claim 22 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 23-26, and 38-39 further define the abstract idea as identified and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claims 23-26 and 38-39 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 27 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic communication service (See paragraphs 222, 224, 226, and 228) and the communication store (See paragraph 222) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claim 27 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 28 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the phone system (See paragraph 126), dialer tables (See paragraph 126), and dialer list (See paragraph 126) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claim 28 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 29 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the phone system (See paragraph 126) and interactive voice response system (See paragraph 223) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claim 29 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 30 and 32-34 further define the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic interactive voice response system (See paragraph 223) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claims 30 and 32-34 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 31 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic communications service (See paragraphs 222, 224, 226, and 228) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claim 31 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 35-36 further define the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic push-communications API (See paragraphs 224 and 228) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claims 35-36 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 37 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic partner application (See paragraphs 224 and 228) and real-estate professional’s phone (See paragraphs 224 and 228) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claim 37 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 40 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic partner application (See paragraphs 224 and 228) and communications service (See paragraphs 222, 224, 226, and 228) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore claim 40 is considered to be patent ineligible.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on page 5 of the Remarks, regarding the 112 (b) rejection the Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the 112 (b) rejection.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 5-7 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection the Examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the independent claim integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a specific communications architecture that changes the operation of the lead-management system and phone system. According to Applicant, the amended claim recites the communication service creates a contact list for a dialer, the dialer calls matched real-estate professionals, the IVR system receives a claim input and writes the first-responding real-estate professional to a call queue, and a connection handler calls the communication service to indicate the first-responding professional. Applicant contends these are not merely instructions to match or assign a referral but rather a specific interoperation of a communication service, dialer, IVR system, call queue, and connection handler to coordinate real-time telephony routing. Applicant asserts the Specification describes this architecture as part of a lead-management system optimized for speed-to-contact and telecommunications regulatory compliance, and further explains that the disclosed system is rooted in computer-related technology to provide timely connections among borrowers, lending personnel, and brokering personnel. According to Applicant, the amended claim imposes meaningful limits on the alleged abstract idea and applies it through a particular machine-based communications workflow, rather than merely applying the alleged abstract idea on generic computer components.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the claims as drafted recite concepts for organizing the claiming of a lead and is merely applied using generic computing components including the lead-management system and phone system. The Examiner views the new limitations further define the abstract idea for example creating a contact list based on matched professionals selected, receive a claim input from a professional and write the first responding professional to a call queue for a warm transfer, indicate the first-responding real-professional claiming the referral as claimed by Applicant. The Examiner viewed these steps to be merely applied using generic computing components for organizing the claiming of a lead rather than an improvement to technology or other consideration enumerated under MPEP 2106.04 (d). Further the Examiner views the improvement for speed-to-contact "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 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Examiner views the optimization of telecommunications regulatory compliance to relate to improving the business process rather than a technical one as claimed. The Examiner views the workflow claimed by Applicant constitutes the recited abstract idea that is merely applied using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues the amended claim provides practical and technical benefits by tying the lead-matching process to a specific communications architecture that coordinates real-time telephone routing, mobile push communications, and data-driven call scripting. According to Applicant, configuring the communication service to create a contact list for the dialer based on matched real-estate professionals allows the system to convert a matching result into an executable dialing workflow, rather than relying on manual outreach or generic lead assignment. Applicant contends the IVR system receiving a claim input and writing the first-responding professional to a call queue for a warm transfer improves speed-to-contact and reduces the risk of stale, duplicate, or conflicting referral assignments. Applicant argues the connection handler further provides a technical feedback path by calling the communication service to identify the professional who claimed the referral, thereby synchronizing the phone system with the lead-management system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the claims do not provide for technical benefits but rather organize the claiming of a lead using generic computing components including telephony technology, a push communications API and a scripter module that the Examiner viewed as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components or generally linking the abstract idea to a specific field of use and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner reiterates that they viewed each of amended limitations to further define the abstract idea and the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner views Applicant’s proffered improvements to amount to a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to reflect the disclosed improvement. The Specification further illustrates the computing components as well-understood routine and conventional activity or as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components as identified by the Examiner in the Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B Analyses.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Examiner has maintained the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Friedman et al. (US 20150100364) – directed to minimizing lead creation to contact time.
Simons (US 20130297442) - directed to routing and tracking real estate leads.
Fackrell et al. (US 20150006254) - directed to real estate sales lead generation.
Shore (US 20170318157) - directed to secure call routing and queuing.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J. Monaghan/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights