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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Dec. 22, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 12-19 and 21-23 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1-11 and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 12 is amended.
Claims 12-19 and 21-23 are rejected.
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed Dec. 22, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112(a) rejections, the rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the claims as amended recite purchasing a property which a technical solution to the problem of making offers and purchasing properties based on historical trends. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Examiner finds making offers and purchasing properties do not reflect technical problems or solutions but instead reflect an abstract idea (i.e., performing market research for the purposes of buying real estate).
Accordingly the 101 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the cited references do not teach purchasing a property. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Applicant does not explain how or why the cited references do not teach purchasing a property and because Examiner finds Shah teaches a website for buying and selling property.
Second, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because one of ordinary skill would not have had a reason to modify the Ratio Studies reference to arrive at the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Applicant does not explain how or why the rationales provided in the previous Office Action were flawed.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Applicant asserts the cited references do not teach normalizing. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Applicant does not explain how or why the cited references do not teach normalizing as claimed and because Examiner finds Shi teaches determining a coefficient of dispersion over time.
Accordingly the 103 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
In response to arguments in reference to any other depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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 12-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 12-19 and 21-23 are directed to a process. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claim 12
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 12 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, all the limitations of claim 12 are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the abstract idea. That is, receiving all the various data, computing the ratio, partitioning the timespan to apply a statical aggregations, generating an offer amount based on a just value, and purchasing the property, as claimed, all fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas because all the limitations are commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). All the limitations are commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) because all the limitations are a part of performing market research and transactions (i.e., analyzing trends in property prices and valuations for the purposes of buying real estate). Accordingly, claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 12 does not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 12 does not include additional elements. Claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 22
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 22 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, all the limitations of claim 22, except for displaying the first and seconds plots on a display, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the abstract idea. That is, receiving all the various data, computing the ratio, partitioning the timespan to apply a statical aggregations, generating an offer amount based on a just value, purchasing the property, removing outliers, providing the first and second plots, computing the percentage difference, applying the statistical aggregation and comparing a result, as claimed, all fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas because all the limitations are commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). All the limitations are commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) because all the limitations are a part of performing market research and transactions (i.e., analyzing trends in property prices and valuations for the purposes of buying real estate). Accordingly, claim 22 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 22 does not recites the additional elements of displaying the first and seconds plots on a display. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of outputting data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). Accordingly, claim 22 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 22 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because using the categories of real estate are still a part of performing market research.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because using medians or means as part of the statical aggregation is still a part of performing market research.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the fixed valuation date being a governmental entity pushing date is still a part of performing market research.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because removing outliers, as claimed, is a part of performing market research.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, claims 17 and 18 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because computing and plotting the various data, as claimed, is a part of performing market research.
Claims 17 and 18 further recite the additional elements of displaying the plot on a display. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of outputting data (i.e. displaying results on an analysis), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because applying statistical aggregation on sub-locales and comparing results, as claimed, is a part of performing market research.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, claims 21 and 23 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because normalizing, as claimed, is a part is a part of performing market research (i.e., showing trends over time).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12-19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Standard on Ratio Studies. (1999). Assessment Journal, 6(5), 23-64, herein referred to as “Ratio Studies”; in view of Shi, Song. "House price indices using assessed values statistics." International Journal of Strategic Property Management 19.1 (2015): 27-41, herein referred to as “Shi”, further in view of Furst, Bill, "Appraisal Process" Sarasota County Property Appraiser; as archived May 21, 2022, herein referred to as “Furst”, further in view of Shah, US Pub. No. 2020/0294162, herein referred to as “Shah”.
Regarding claim 12, Ratio Studies teaches:
receiving first real estate data comprising a geographic locale, a category of real estate properties (studies are based on neighborhood and type of property, e.g., pg. 24, §2.2, pg. 27, §3.2, pg. 29, §4.6),
and a timespan (studies are based on a given time period, pgs. 30-31, §5.4);
b) receiving second real estate data comprising price information for each real estate transaction of a plurality of real estate transactions in the geographic locale, in the category of real estate properties, and in the timespan, the second real estate data comprising a sale price for each real estate transaction of the plurality of real estate transactions (acquires sales data including consideration, property data, dates and location, pgs. 32-33, §§6.1, 6.2; see also pgs. 32-39 generally discussing collecting data on real estate sales);
c) receiving objective valuation data for each property of the plurality of real estate transactions, the objective valuation data comprising an objective valuation at a fixed valuation date for each property of the plurality of real estate transactions (obtains appraised or assessed values and associated dates, pgs. 29-31, §§5.1.2, 5.3, 5.4; see also e.g., pg. 27, §4.3 noting the appraised values are used for tax purposes and the appraisals must be for the same property),
the objective valuation being from a third-party source that was not involved in any real estate transaction of the plurality of real estate transactions (assessed value is defined as value set on real estate and personal property by a government, pg. 58, §15);
d) computing a ratio, for each real estate transaction of the plurality of real estate transactions, of the respective sale price to the respective objective valuation (determines ratio of appraised value and market value, e.g., pgs. 23-24 §2.1, pgs. 39-40, §7.1, pg. 42 Tbl. 2).
and g) utilizing the historical trend of real estate prices relative to the objective valuation data to generate an amount for an offer to purchase a property in the geographic locale (uses direct equalization to determine market value, pg. 24 §2.3.2.1; see also pg. 59 defining Direct equalization as the process of converting ratio study results into adjustment factors (trends) and changing locally determined appraised or assessed values to more nearly reflect market value)
However Ratio Studies does not teach but Shi does teach:
e) partitioning the timespan into a plurality of time periods; and f) applying a statistical aggregation function on each time period, comprising applying the statistical aggregation function on all ratios within the respective time period to provide the historical trend of real estate prices relative to the objective valuation data (determines coefficient of dispersion of assessment ratios over time, pgs. 33-35, Tbl.4 and Fig. 1; see also pgs. 32-33, §5.2 discussing Fig. 1; and pgs. 27-28, §1 discussing ratio methods).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies with the analysis of Shi because Shi teaches the analysis is useful for assessing the impact of vertical and horizontal inequities when evaluating housing prices, see Shi pg. 37, §6; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
However the combination of Ratio Studies and Shi does not teach but Furst does teach:
the objective valuation data for each property being a just value of the respective property (estimates just value of property, pg. 1 of PDF provided with this Office Action),
the just value of each property being an objective market value published by a county appraiser that governs a county having the respective property located therein (just value is the market value of the property in the county, pg. 1; see also pg. 2 discussing notice of property’s value),
the just value of each property being a combined value of land and building on said property, the combined value being a price for which said property is appraised by the county appraiser as being able to be sold for in a competitive market as of January 1 of the year for which the just value was appraised by the county appraiser therein (just value is the market value of the property as of January 1st, pg. 1; see also pg. 2 discussing property value including construction, neighborhood and year built),
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies and Shi with the use of the just value of Furst because Furst explicitly teaches such a valuation process is required by law, pg. 1 of PDF; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
However the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi and Furst does not teach but Shah does teach:
h) purchasing the property in the geographic locale at the amount of the offer generated in step g) (client device receives the value and user completes the buying and selling transaction, ¶[0015])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies, Shi and Furst with the computer system of Shah because Ratio Studies suggest doing so, see MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Ratio Studies explicitly teaches computers “should be used as much as possible to expand analytical capabilities and simplify calculations”, pg. 50, §9.4. Accordingly one of ordinary skill would have used a computer system, e.g., as taught by Shah, when performing real estate pricing evaluations and purchases.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi, Furst and Shah teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Ratio Studies further teaches:
the geographic locale being a zip code, a neighborhood, a town, a city, a county, a metropolitan area, or a state (studies are based on neighborhood, e.g., pg. 24, §2.2, pg. 27, §3.2, pg. 29, §4.6; see also e.g., pg. 32, §6.1 discussing street addresses, etc.);
the category of real estate properties being single-family dwellings, condominium apartments, multiple-family dwellings, houses of a predetermined size range, commercial real estate, or vacant land (properties analyzed include, e.g., single-family residential, pg. 55 Tbl. 7; commercial properties, pgs. 46-47 §7.7);
and the third-party source that was not involved in any real estate transaction of the plurality of real estate transactions being a governmental entity (assessed value is defined as value set on real estate and personal property by a government, pg. 58, §15).
However Ratio Studies does not teach but Shi does teach:
each time period of the plurality of time periods being a month, a quarter, or a year (data analysis is yearly, pgs. 33-35, Tbls. 3, 4, and Fig. 1).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies with the analysis of Shi because Shi teaches the analysis is useful for assessing the impact of vertical and horizontal inequities when assessing housing prices, see Shi pg. 37, §6; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi, Furst and Shah teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Ratio Studies further teaches:
the statistical aggregation function being a median or a mean (uses various statistical measure including median and mean, pgs. 40-43, §§7.3, 7.3.1-7.3.4).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi, Furst and Shah teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Ratio Studies further teaches:
the fixed valuation date for each property of the plurality of real estate transactions being a specific date (assessment date, e.g., pgs. 32-33, §6.1).
However the combination of Ratio Studies and Shi does not teach but Furst does teach:
on which a governmental entity publishes assessment valuations for the geographic locale (notice of property’s value, pg. 2).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies and Shi with the use of the just value of Furst because Furst explicitly teaches such a valuation process is required by law, pg. 1 of PDF; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi, Furst and Shah teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Ratio Studies further teaches:
removing any outliers from the plurality of real estate transactions before applying the statistical aggregation function (removes outliers, pgs. 39-40, §6.6, and Tbl. 1),
a real estate transaction being considered an outlier if a characteristic of the real estate transaction is outside a predetermined range compared to the remaining real estate transaction of the plurality of real estate transaction (outliers are identified if the ratio is more than 1.5 times beyond the middle 50 percent of the arrayed sample, pg. 40, Tbl. 1; see also pg. 39, §6.6 discussing other ways of identifying outliers).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi, Furst and Shah teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Shi further teaches:
providing a plot of the historical trend of real estate prices relative to the objective valuation over the timespan (plots Sale Price Appraisal Ratio (SPAR) over time, pg. 38, Fig. 2; see also pgs. 36-37, §5.4 discussing Fig. 2).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies with the analysis of Shi because Shi teaches the analysis is useful for assessing the impact of vertical and horizontal inequities when evaluating housing prices, see Shi pg. 37, §6; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
However the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi and Furst does not teach but Shah does teach:
and displaying on the display (provides data to user, e.g., ¶[0014]; see also e.g., ¶[0041] discussing display).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies, Shi and Furst with the computer system of Shah because Ratio Studies suggest doing so, see MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Ratio Studies explicitly teaches computers “should be used as much as possible to expand analytical capabilities and simplify calculations”, pg. 50, §9.4. Accordingly one of ordinary skill would have used a computer system, e.g., as taught by Shah, when performing real estate pricing evaluations.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi, Furst and Shah teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Shi further teaches:
computing a percentage difference of the statistical aggregation function for each time period compared to the statistical aggregation function of all time periods of the timespan; providing a plot of the percentage difference for each time period over the timespan (determines coefficient of dispersion of assessment ratios over time, pgs. 34-35, Fig. 1; see also pgs. 32-33, §5.2 discussing Fig. 1; and pgs. 27-28, §1 discussing ratio methods).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies with the analysis of Shi because Shi teaches the analysis is useful for assessing the impact of vertical and horizontal inequities when evaluating housing prices, see Shi pg. 37, §6; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
However the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi and Furst does not teach but Shah does teach:
and displaying on the display (provides data to user, e.g., ¶[0014]; see also e.g., ¶[0041] discussing display).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies, Shi and Furst with the computer system of Shah because Ratio Studies suggest doing so, see MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Ratio Studies explicitly teaches computers “should be used as much as possible to expand analytical capabilities and simplify calculations”, pg. 50, §9.4. Accordingly one of ordinary skill would have used a computer system, e.g., as taught by Shah, when performing real estate pricing evaluations.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi, Furst and Shah teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Shi further teaches:
partitioning the geographic locale into a plurality of sub-locales; applying the statistical aggregation function independently on each sub-locale of the plurality of sub-locales; and comparing a result of applying the statistical aggregation function for a first sub-locale of the plurality of sub-locales to that of a second sub-locale of the plurality of sub-locales (analyzes SPAR and various statistics for multiple cities, pgs. 33-34, Tbls. 3 and 4).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies with the analysis of Shi because Shi teaches the analysis is useful for assessing the impact of vertical and horizontal inequities when evaluating housing prices, see Shi pg. 37, §6; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi, Furst and Shah teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Shi further teaches:
step f) further comprising normalizing, to the time periods, results of applying the statistical aggregation function (determines coefficient of dispersion over time, Fig. 1. and pg. 32 §5.2, and coefficient of dispersion is a normalization).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies with the analysis of Shi because Shi teaches the analysis is useful for assessing the impact of vertical and horizontal inequities when evaluating housing prices, see Shi pg. 37, §6; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 22 Ratio Studies teaches:
a) receiving first real estate data comprising a geographic locale, a category of real estate properties (studies are based on neighborhood and type of property, e.g., pg. 24, §2.2, pg. 27, §3.2, pg. 29, §4.6),
and a timespan (studies are based on a given time period, pgs. 30-31, §5.4);
b) receiving second real estate data comprising price information for each real estate transaction of a plurality of real estate transactions in the geographic locale, in the category of real estate properties, and in the timespan, the second real estate data comprising a sale price for each real estate transaction of the plurality of real estate transactions (acquires sales data including consideration, property data, dates and location, pgs. 32-33, §§6.1, 6.2; see also pgs. 32-39 generally discussing collecting data on real estate sales);
c) receiving objective valuation data for each property of the plurality of real estate transactions, the objective valuation data comprising an objective valuation at a fixed valuation date for each property of the plurality of real estate transactions (obtains appraised or assessed values and associated dates, pgs. 29-31, §§5.1.2, 5.3, 5.4; see also e.g., pg. 27, §4.3 noting the appraised values are used for tax purposes and the appraisals must be for the same property),
the objective valuation being from a third-party source that was not involved in any real estate transaction of the plurality of real estate transactions (assessed value is defined as value set on real estate and personal property by a government, pg. 58, §15);
d) computing a ratio, for each real estate transaction of the plurality of real estate transactions, of the respective sale price to the respective objective valuation (determines ratio of appraised value and market value, e.g., pgs. 23-24 §2.1, pgs. 39-40, §7.1, pg. 42 Tbl. 2);
g) utilizing the historical trend of real estate prices relative to the objective valuation data to generate an amount for an offer to purchase a property in the geographic locale (uses direct equalization to determine market value, pg. 24 §2.3.2.1; see also pg. 59 defining Direct equalization as the process of converting ratio study results into adjustment factors (trends) and changing locally determined appraised or assessed values to more nearly reflect market value);
the geographic locale being a zip code, a neighborhood, a town, a city, a county, a metropolitan area, or a state (studies are based on neighborhood, e.g., pg. 24, §2.2, pg. 27, §3.2, pg. 29, §4.6; see also e.g., pg. 32, §6.1 discussing street addresses, etc.),
the category of real estate properties being single-family dwellings, condominium apartments, multiple-family dwellings, houses of a predetermined size range, commercial real estate, or vacant land (properties analyzed include, e.g., single-family residential, pg. 55 Tbl. 7; commercial properties, pgs. 46-47 §7.7);
the third-party source that was not involved in any real estate transaction of the plurality of real estate transactions being a governmental entity (assessed value is defined as value set on real estate and personal property by a government, pg. 58, §15),
the statistical aggregation function being a median or a mean (uses various statistical measure including median and mean, pgs. 40-43, §§7.3, 7.3.1-7.3.4),
the fixed valuation date for each property of the plurality of real estate transactions being a specific date (assessment date, e.g., pgs. 32-33, §6.1).
the method further comprising removing any outliers from the plurality of real estate transactions before applying the statistical aggregation function (removes outliers, pgs. 39-40, §6.6, and Tbl. 1),
a real estate transaction being considered an outlier if a characteristic of the real estate transaction is outside a predetermined range compared to the remaining real estate transaction of the plurality of real estate transaction (outliers are identified if the ratio is more than 1.5 times beyond the middle 50 percent of the arrayed sample, pg. 40, Tbl. 1; see also pg. 39, §6.6 discussing other ways of identifying outliers).
However Ratio Studies does not teach but Shi does teach:
e) partitioning the timespan into a plurality of time periods; and f) applying a statistical aggregation function on each time period, comprising applying the statistical aggregation function on all ratios within the respective time period to provide the historical trend of real estate prices relative to the objective valuation data (determines coefficient of dispersion of assessment ratios over time, pgs. 33-35, Tbl.4 and Fig. 1; see also pgs. 32-33, §5.2 discussing Fig. 1; and pgs. 27-28, §1 discussing ratio methods);
each time period of the plurality of time periods being a month, a quarter, or a year (data analysis is yearly, pgs. 33-35, Tbls. 3, 4, and Fig. 1),
and the method further comprising: providing a first plot of the historical trend of real estate prices relative to the objective valuation over the timespan (plots Sale Price Appraisal Ratio (SPAR) over time, pg. 38, Fig. 2; see also pgs. 36-37, §5.4 discussing Fig. 2);
computing a percentage difference of the statistical aggregation function for each time period compared to the statistical aggregation function of all time periods of the timespan providing a second plot of the percentage difference for each time period over the timespan (determines coefficient of dispersion of assessment ratios over time, pgs. 34-35, Fig. 1; see also pgs. 32-33, §5.2 discussing Fig. 1; and pgs. 27-28, §1 discussing ratio methods);
partitioning the geographic locale into a plurality of sub-locales; applying the statistical aggregation function independently on each sub-locale of the plurality of sub-locales; and comparing a result of applying the statistical aggregation function for a first sub- locale of the plurality of sub-locales to that of a second sub-locale of the plurality of sub- locales (analyzes SPAR and various statistics for multiple cities, pgs. 33-34, Tbls. 3 and 4).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies with the analysis of Shi because Shi teaches the analysis is useful for assessing the impact of vertical and horizontal inequities when evaluating housing prices, see Shi pg. 37, §6; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
However the combination of Ratio Studies and Shi does not teach but Furst does teach:
the objective valuation data for each property being a just value of the respective property (estimates just value of property, pg. 1 of PDF provided with previous Office Action),,
the just value of each property being an objective market value published by a county appraiser that governs a county having the respective property located therein (just value is the market value of the property in the county, pg. 1 of PDF provided with previous Office Action; see also pg. 2 discussing notice of property’s value),
the just value of each property being a combined value of land and building on said property, the combined value being a price for which said property is appraised by the county appraiser as being able to be sold for in a competitive market as of January 1 of the year for which the just value was appraised by the county appraiser (just value is the market value of the property as of January 1st, pg. 1; see also pg. 2 discussing property value including construction, neighborhood and year built),
on which a governmental entity publishes assessment valuations for the geographic locale (notice of property’s value, pg. 2),
However the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi and Furst does not teach but Shah does teach:
and h) purchasing the property in the geographic locale at the amount of the offer generated in step g) (client device receives the value and user completes the buying and selling transaction, ¶[0015]),
displaying the first plot on a display (provides data to user, e.g., ¶[0014]);
and displaying the second plot on the display (provides data to user, e.g., ¶[0014]);
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies, Shi and Furst with the computer system of Shah because Ratio Studies suggest doing so, see MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Ratio Studies explicitly teaches computers “should be used as much as possible to expand analytical capabilities and simplify calculations”, pg. 50, §9.4. Accordingly one of ordinary skill would have used a computer system, e.g., as taught by Shah, when performing real estate pricing evaluations.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Ratio Studies, Shi, Furst and Shah teaches all the limitations of claim 22 and Shi further teaches:
step f) further comprising normalizing, to the time periods, results of applying the statistical aggregation function (determines coefficient of dispersion over time, Fig. 1. and pg. 32 §5.2, and coefficient of dispersion is a normalization).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the real estate pricing evaluation of Ratio Studies with the analysis of Shi because Shi teaches the analysis is useful for assessing the impact of vertical and horizontal inequities when evaluating housing prices, see Shi pg. 37, §6; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626