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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on September 15, 2025.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the 101 rejections of claims 10-12 and 14-17 for being potentially software by itself, from the previous Office action, are hereby withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, please note the new claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 Alice-type claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
Regarding 101 Alice, Applicant argues that the claims represent a technological improvement in processing geospatial and elevation data to determine buildable area using slope band parcel ratios. Applicant references various data processing in the claims, as well as the underlying computing components used to carry out the steps. Examiner disagrees. The claims continue to represent a certain method(s) of organizing human activity, performed on generic computing components, without more, which is not eligible under USPTO 101 guidance. See the rejections for details on this. To paraphrase the rejections somewhat, we can see that the claims recite certain method(s) of organizing human activity, because the analysis of the geographical data has the point of helping to determine how humans can develop real estate, including commercial opportunities (see, for example, claim 8). This type of field is organizational and/or business, not technological. The underlying computing components may all be generic computing components. Although they may have labels like “real estate analysis engine”, such a label may simply stand for a generic computing component that performs the labeled function (real estate analysis here). Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Regarding the McRO argument, McRO is distinguishable at least because the field there was determined to be technological, while Applicant’s real estate analysis field is not.
Regarding the Electric Power Group argument, merely because Applicant’s claims apply more data processing than simply looking up and outputting data, this does not automatically render the claims eligible. An abstract idea may involve calculating a very complex mathematical function, but if this is merely done on generic computing components, without more, this would not be eligible under USPTO 101 guidance.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application, referencing the geospatial data server, elevation data converter, and real estate analysis engine, as well as the specific data that is determined by the computing components. In response, again the various functional components may simply be generic computing components that happen to perform the functions used to label them. For example, an elevation data converter may simply be a computing system that converts elevation data. Converting elevation data is part of the abstract idea here, while the underlying computing component does not become non-generic simply because it performs a piece of the abstract idea. Therefore, these aspects do not, in and of themselves, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regardng the DDR and Visual Memory arguments, Examiner disagrees that Applicant’s functions are technological in nature. Again, they simply process geographical data for purposes of real estate development and commercialization. Therefore, they represent a certain method(s) of organizing human activity instead.
Applicant argues that the claims add significantly more because of specific data processing/calculations being performed. Again, the complexity of data processing, in and of itself, does not render eligibility to abstract ideas performed on generic computing components, without more, under 101 guidance. Therefore, Examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
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 18-19 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 claim(s) contains 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per Claims 18-19, claim 19 depends from independent claim 18. The easiest way to understand their written description issues is that these claims have been amended to specify certain components of the system performing corresponding functions. However, in some instances, the incorrect component for the corresponding function appears to have accidentally been inserted, when looked at with respect to Applicant’s application-as-originally-filed. The instances of this are (1) the geospatial data server of line 3 of claim 18 appears to have accidentally been switched with the elevation data converter in line 6 of claim 18. See the components recited for these corresponding functions in independent claim 1. In addition, in lines 2 and 4 of claim 19, it appears that “real estate analysis engine” was used where “real estate feasibility engine” was intended. Compare claim 19 with claim 17 on these components and functions. Examiner confirmed these rejections by doing text-string searches of the application-as-originally-filed for the names of these components at issue. Therefore, claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1 and 10, Claim(s) 1 and 10 recite(s):
- a real estate feasibility analysis method;
- receiving elevation data corresponding to a geographical location, wherein the elevation data comprises altitude contours defined by horizontal and vertical coordinates within the geographical location;
- receiving parcel information comprising coordinate information defining boundary and structure information associated with the parcel and any structures thereon;
- generating elevation slope bands for each of the altitude contours associated with the parcel;
- determining, by real estate analysis, that a parcel of real property is located within the geographical location using the parcel information;
- determining, by the real estate analysis, slope band parcel ratios of the parcel using the parcel information and the elevation slope bands, wherein the slope band parcel ratios indicate a percentage of area of the parcel associated with each of the elevation slope bands;
- determining, by the real estate analysis, a maximum buildable area using the slope band parcel ratios of the parcel.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): analyzes a parcel for development potential, relates to commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): helps determine to what extent people can develop a parcel, manages their behavior that way.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- computer-implemented; a processor; storing information on a geospatial data server; data storage; an analysis engine; a system; one or more processors; a data server configured to receive and publish; a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processors to implement; a data converter; an analysis engine configured: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the 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. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-9 and 11-17, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- displaying/display (Claims 4 and 13);
- another engine (Claim 8).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 5 merely further specifies the parcel information.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-17 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 18, Claim(s) 18 recite(s):
- a real estate feasibility analysis method;
- receiving elevation data corresponding to a geographical location, wherein the elevation data comprises altitude contours defined by horizontal and vertical coordinates within the geographical location;
- receiving parcel information corresponding to a parcel of real property located within the geographical location, the parcel information comprising coordinate data defining boundary and structure information associated with the parcel and any structures thereon, zoning parameters, residential floor area ratio regulations, lot coverage restrictions, setback regulations, land use regulations, height restrictions, map-based boundary data, property ownership data, building footprint data, interior room boundary data, assessor data, and multiple listing service data;
- generating elevation slope bands for each of the altitude contours associated with the parcel from the elevation data;
- determining, by real estate analysis, slope band parcel ratios of the parcel using the parcel information and the elevation slope bands, wherein the slope band parcel ratios indicate a percentage of area of the parcel associated with each of the elevation slope bands, wherein the slope band parcel ratios are reduced by a magnitude to which the parcel regulations restrict building on the slope band parcel ratios, for each of the slope band parcel ratios;
- determining, by the real estate analysis, a maximum buildable area using the slope band parcel ratios of the parcel;
- determining, by the real estate analysis, a maximum opportunity area associated with the parcel, wherein the maximum opportunity area comprises the difference between the maximum buildable area and a structural area determined from the structure coordinates of the parcel;
- determining, by the real estate analysis, a maximum build score associated with the parcel, wherein the maximum build score is represented by a ratio of the maximum opportunity area to the maximum buildable area;
- outputting at least one of the maximum build score, at least a portion of the parcel information, and a three-dimensional representation of the parcel and the slope bands parcel ratios.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): analyzes a parcel for development potential, relates to commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): helps determine to what extent people can develop a parcel, manages their behavior that way.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- computer-implemented; a processor; a geospatial data server; a data converter; an analysis engine; outputting via displaying; a display: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the 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. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 19, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
The added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 19 merely adds further development opportunity steps onto the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 18-19 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Angevine, US 20220207846 A1 (system and method to process and display information related to real estate by developing and presenting a photogrammetric reality mesh);
b. Peterson, US 20160027020 A1 (method and apparatus for determining parcel build size);
c. Peterson, US 20150187029 A1 (method and apparatus for determining parcel building size).
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 NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628