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 Amendment
Applicant's arguments and remarks of 06/11/2026 have been entered.
Claim 1, 2, 5 – 13, 15, 16, and 18 – 20, are pending; claim 17 being presently cancelled.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 depends to claim 17, which is presently cancelled. Claim 18 has been interpreted to depend to claim 11, which cancelled claim 17 depended to, and claim 11 recites the performance value which claim 18 further limits.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 2, 5 – 13, 15, 16, and 18 – 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a method and a system ; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims set forth a method for receiving data associated with a property of interest, determining certain attributes (evaluating the data), and then predicting and adjusting a property value (making a judgment or opinion based on comparisons). This can be described as a mental process, and thus, recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claims 11, contains the elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method, comprising:
receiving a top-down image of a property of interest;
extracting a set of measurements depicting the property of interest from the top-down image by image segmentation;
retrieving auxiliary property information indicative of property value;
determining parcel data associated with the property of interest from the auxiliary property information;
determining a set of property condition attributes using a set of attribute models based on the set of measurements and the parcel data;
determining a set of uncertainty parameters associated with each property condition attribute of the set of property condition attributes;
training a third-party automated valuation model based on a set of auxiliary properties, wherein each auxiliary property of the set of auxiliary properties is associated with a set of auxiliary property attribute values and an actual auxiliary property value, wherein the third-party automated valuation model is trained by:
for each auxiliary property of the set of auxiliary properties:
generating a predicted auxiliary property value using the third-party automated valuation model, given the respective set of auxiliary property attribute values of each auxiliary property; and
training the third-party automated valuation model based on a comparison between the actual auxiliary property value of the auxiliary property and the respective predicted auxiliary property value to account for nonstructural property attributes:
receiving a predicted property value from the trained third-party automated valuation model, wherein the trained third-party automated valuation model uses the set of property condition attributes and the set of uncertainty parameters as inputs to generate the predicted property value; and
dynamically adjusting the predicted property value for the property of interest, given the set of property condition attributes and the set of uncertainty parameters by;
for each property attribute value within a range associated with each property condition attribute of the set of property condition attributes:
determining a performance value for the trained third-party automated valuation model, wherein the performance value is determined based on a comparison between each predicted auxiliary property value and respective actual auxiliary property value;
determining an adjustment factor for the property attribute value such that the performance value is normalized across the set of property condition attribute values for the property condition attribute; and
adjusting the predicted property value for the property of interest according to the adjustment factor.
Claim 11, adds elements that further define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
determining a discount curve associated with a property condition attribute of the set of property condition attributes; and
determining a property discount value using the discount curve based on a property condition attribute value for the property condition attribute, wherein the adjustment factor comprises the property discount value.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the following additional elements:
image segmentation;
training a third-party automated valuation model;
a system, comprising: a processing system.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described the system generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0029], and Figure 13, as filed. The automated valuation model is also broadly defined, namely; “…method can include and/or be used with: one or more property attribute models, one or more automated valuation models, one or more adjustment models, and/or any other suitable models.” Specification [0060 and 0062]. Training a model is further generically disclosed; detailing a well-known process of feeding data into an algorithm, recognizing patterns, and making more accurate predictions on future data. Specification [0061] broadly refers to this process and the claims recite this data as inputs. This model is trained on the aforementioned generic system. Lastly, image segmentation requires inputting an image data into a property attribute model; thus, utilizing a general-purpose computer to gather and analyze readily obtainable imagery. See Specification [0034]. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements are directed to the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (image segmentation; automated valuation model; a processing system), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 12 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 11. Recitations to certain condition attributes of the property as well as 3D measurement and aerial imagery of the property are descriptive of the information about a property and are the crux of the abstract idea – information that is to be evaluated and judged. Further, the claims rely on instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, using the generically described devices noted above. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 5, 6, 10, 16, and 18, contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 11. Recitations to ways to train the model, determining trends, a discount curve, and predicted property values, are descriptive of the evaluation method employed. The use of a machine-learning model is broadly defined and amounts to instructing one to perform the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7, 8, 13, 15, 19, and 20, contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 11. Recitations to ingest data, and extract data, describe the information about a property and are the crux of the abstract idea – information that is to be evaluated and judged. Further, these claims rely on the on instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, using the generically described devices noted earlier to perform the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1 – 2, 5 – 13, and 15, 16, and 18 – 20, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first remarks regarding “The Final Office Action dated May 11, 2026…”. The Examiner has determined this is a typo, since the Remarks are filed along with a Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final. The Non-Final Rejection is dated 03/11/2026. Therefore, the Examiner has construed these arguments and remarks to be directed the rejection of all prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant’s remarks begin with this analysis and traverses the previous rejection. See page 9. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant remarks that amended claim 1, in combination with the limitations of dependent claim 17 (presently cancelled), “combine to provide a practical application of the alleged abstract idea.” Applicant maintains that the claims “reflect an improvement to automated valuation modelling that improves the accuracy and efficiency of the models.” See page 11. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pointing to computer implemented machine learning models is not a persuasive argument.
First, as noted at MPEP 2106.04(d), relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include: an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Further, if an improvement is disclosed, the claims are evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. No such improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to technology is disclosed within the Specification or recited in the claims. As noted above, the claims recite receiving data (images and property information) and then evaluating the information and adjusting values and comparing values. This is descriptive of receiving data associated with a property of interest, determining certain attributes (evaluating the data), and then predicting and adjusting a property value (making a judgment or opinion based on comparisons). This can be described as a mental process, and thus, recites an abstract idea. Because the claims do not describe any improvement steps, they cannot be construed to provide a practical application of the alleged abstract idea.
Applicant’s remarks of training an automated valuation model are also not persuasive. Applicant’s disclosure and claims describe how a model is generally trained. See Specification [0061]. Applicant has not improved on a technical aspect needed to gather data, calculate values, or compare and weight data. Applicant has used a generic system to perform data gathering and number crunching. This system also generically described. As Applicant has remarked, the claims improve a computer-implemented method of automating valuation models. This is not an improvement to technology and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner adds that Applicant’s remarks on “improving the accuracy and efficiency of AVMs by employing a post value prediction adjustment method to third-party AVMS trained to determine property values”, is still directed to improving the mental process of evaluating and judging property values. An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, improving the mental process abstract idea is not an improvement to computer functionality or other technology. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The claims remain distinguished over prior art. In view of the amendments to the claims, and upon updated search, cited prior art fails to teach or suggest claimed elements, alone or in combination, within amended claims 1 and 11. These include: determining a set of uncertainty parameters associated with each property condition attribute of the set of property condition attributes; receiving a predicted property value from a third-party automated valuation model, wherein the third-party automated valuation model is configured to receive the set of property condition attributes and the set of uncertainty parameters as inputs: and, adjusting the predicted property value for the property of interest, given the set of property condition attributes and the set of uncertainty parameters; and, determining a discount curve associated with a property condition attribute of the set of property condition attributes; and determining a property discount value using the discount curve based on a property condition attribute value for the property condition attribute, wherein the adjustment factor comprises the property discount value; wherein the third-party automated valuation model determines a predicted property value for the property of interest, given the set of property condition attributes and the adjustment factor; and adjust the predicted property value for the property of interest, given the set of property condition attributes and the adjustment factor.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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 at (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.
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights