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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 8, 2025 has been entered.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites "by the dialer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the dialer in the claim.
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 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;
[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)
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” (See paragraphs 169, 224, 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 claims 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 claims 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 interaction 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 claim 30 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 30 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 31-34 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 31-34 are 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 claims 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 December 8, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 5-7 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection the examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues under Alice Step 1 that the claims are directed to a communication service between a plurality of matched real-estate professionals, where this orchestration involves machine-managed messaging logic, time-sensitive event handling, and automated evaluation of responses, none of which constitutes a mere business practice or fundamental economic principal. Applicant contends the scripter module to populate a script with sales-lead data, where this describes a technical interaction between the dialer subsystem (a telephony device that detects call-answering events) and the scripter module (a computer-executed routine) and reflects a technological improvement to automated call handling, data integration, and script generation, not a general business concept. According to Applicant the claims are directed to a specific structured improvement in the field of computer-implemented lead routing and telephony-integrated systems.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees maintaining the claims recite an abstract idea in the form of organizing the claiming of a real-estate lead for professionals as identified in Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis. Further the additional elements as identified in the Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis are 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.
Applicant argues under Alice Step 2 the communication service is configured to orchestrate competition for a referral is not a generic use of a computer, but requires the system to perform automated coordination of referral claiming events among matched professionals, based on computer-generated invitations and machine-recognized responses, where this real-time orchestration is a technical improvement over conventional communications platform. Applicant contends that the claims recite an IVR system configured to assign the referral to a first-responding real-estate professional, where assigning a referral based on IVR detected response ordering is an unconventional and technologically rooted mechanism that automates resource allocation with improved speed and accuracy. Applicant contends the scripter module provides a further inventive concept that by triggered upon a potential borrower answering a call dialed by the dialer and then populating a script with sales-lead data, the system performs event-driven dynamic content generation tightly integrated with telephony signaling. According to Applicant the claimed combination provides a technical improvement to automated decision support during live calls, such machine-triggered population of structured scripts goes well beyond conventional CRM systems and cannot be performed as a mental process.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees rather viewing the additional elements of communication service and IVR system as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Further "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 reiterates that the claimed concept of performing this via a telephony communications i.e. “upon a potential borrower answering a call by the dialer” the Examiner views as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use rather than integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant claimed improvements reflected in the claims are for improving the abstract idea (i.e. organizing the claiming of leads) rather than any of the considerations enumerated under MPEP 2106.04 (d). 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, 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.
Huisman, Jr. (US 20120059662) – directed to automated lead processing system.
Jonsson et al. (US 20160189163) – directed to lead management life flow.
Walker et al. (US 20100257012) – directed to a lead management system.
Kugler et al. (US 20130151314) – directed to lead management.
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