Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 2-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category: a system or method or non-transitory computer readable medium.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 2 or claim 14 or claim 26 is directed to an abstract idea of storing instructions and data relating to the inventory of items; receive information from a third-party marketplace relating to a transaction made by the owner and involving one or more first items; automatically determine, using the received information from the third-party marketplace, whether the transaction results in a change to the inventory of items associated with the home; and in response to determining that the transaction results in a change to the inventory of items associated with the home, automatically update data relating to the inventory of items stored in, wherein the automatically updated data comprises data regarding a monetary value of the inventory of items. This concept of managing information fall under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 2 or claim 14 or claim 26 include: system; one or more computer-readable storage media; and one or more computer processors, programmed via the instructions to; the one or more computer-readable storage media. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of system; one or more computer-readable storage media; and one or more computer processors, programmed via the instructions to; the one or more computer-readable storage media amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of system; one or more computer-readable storage media; and one or more computer processors, programmed via the instructions to; the one or more computer-readable storage media is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data gathering. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network has been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, claim 2, claim 14 or/and claim 26 is/are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 3-13, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 2. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 15-25, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 14. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
monetary
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-26 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chapman (US Publication: 2006/0282342 A1) in view of Stone et al. (US Patent Number: 6446045).
As per claim 2, Chapman teaches a computer-implemented system for managing information relating to an inventory of items associated with a home, the home having an owner, the system comprising (see at least abstract; [0004]-[0006] and [0020]): one or more computer-readable storage media, storing instructions and data relating to the inventory of items (see at least abstract; [0004]-[0006], [0020] and [0080]); and one or more computer processors, programmed via the instructions to (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0020]-[0022] and [0080]): receive information relating to a transaction involving one or more first items (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0020] and [0080]); automatically determine whether the transaction results in a change to the inventory of items associated with the home (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0023], [0026], [0030]-{0041], and [0052]); and in response to determining that the transaction results in a change to the inventory of items associated with the home, automatically update data relating to the inventory of items stored in the one or more computer-readable storage media (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0020], [0022], [0026]-[0045], and [0052]).
Chapman does not teach from a third-party marketplace relating to a transaction made by the owner and, using the received information from the third-party marketplace. However, Stone et al. teaches from a third-party marketplace relating to a transaction made by the owner (see at least column 58, line 34-column 59, line 22) and, using the received information from the third-party marketplace (see at least column 58, line 34-column 59, line 22), wherein the automatically updated data comprises data regarding a monetary value of the inventory of items (see at least column 5, lines 42-51; column 23, lines 27-59; column 28, lines 10-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Chapman with from a third-party marketplace relating to a transaction made by the owner and, using the received information from the third-party marketplace, wherein the automatically updated data comprises data regarding a monetary value of the inventory of items feature of Stone et al. to facilitate transactions (column 23 lines 29-30 of Stone et al.).
As per claim 3, Chapman and Stone et al. teach the computer-implemented system of claim 2 described above. Chapman teaches wherein the transaction comprises a purchase by the owner of the one or more first items, and wherein the one or more computer processors are programmed via the instructions to automatically update the data relating to the inventory of items by adding the one or more first items to the inventory of items (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0022], [0026]-[0045], and [0052]).
As per claim 4, Chapman and Stone et al. teach the computer-implemented system of claim 2 described above. Chapman teaches wherein the transaction comprises a sale by the owner of the one or more first items, and wherein the one or more computer processors are programmed via the instructions to automatically update the data relating to the inventory of items by removing the one or more first items from the inventory of items (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0045], and [0052]).
As per claim 5, Chapman and Stone et al. teach the computer-implemented system of claim 2 described above. Chapman does not teach from wherein the third-party marketplace is one of an online retailer, an online buy/sell marketplace, and an in-person marketplace. However, Stone et al. teaches wherein the third-party marketplace is one of an online retailer, an online buy/sell marketplace, and an in-person marketplace (column 9, lines 15-30; see at least column 58, line 34-column 59, line 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Chapman with from wherein the third-party marketplace is one of an online retailer, an online buy/sell marketplace, and an in-person marketplace. However, Stone et al. teaches wherein the third-party marketplace is one of an online retailer, an online buy/sell marketplace, and an in-person marketplace feature of Stone et al. to facilitate transactions (column 23 lines 29-30 of Stone et al.).
As per claim 6, Chapman and Stone et al. teach the computer-implemented system of claim 2 described above. Chapman teaches wherein the monetary value of the inventory of items reflects one or more of a purchase price of at least one item of the inventory of items, and a resale value of at least one item of the inventory of items (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0045], and [0052]).
As per claim 7, Chapman and Stone et al. teach the computer-implemented system of claim 6 described above. Chapman teaches wherein the monetary value of the inventory of items reflects a resale value of at least one item of the inventory of items, and wherein the one or more computer processors are programmed via the instructions to determine the resale value of the at least one item at least in part by monitoring a market value of the at least one item on one or more online buy/sell marketplaces (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0045], and [0052]).
As per claim 8, Chapman and Stone et al. teach the computer-implemented system of claim 2 described above. Chapman teaches wherein the one or more computer-readable storage media store data relating to individual items of the inventory of items comprising an item name, type, location, manufacturer, model number, universal product code (UPC), serial number, place of purchase, purchase date, purchase price and/or market value (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0045], and [0052]).
As per claim 9, Chapman and Stone et al. teach the computer-implemented system of claim 8 described above. Chapman teaches wherein the type of an individual item indicates whether the item is an antique, appliance, work of art, building/craft material, built-in, camera, clothing, collectible, computer, cutlery, decoration, dish, and/or electronic (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0045], and [0052]).
As per claim 10, Chapman and Stone et al. teach the computer-implemented system of claim 8 described above. Chapman teaches wherein the type of an individual item indicates whether the item can be purchased, borrowed or loaned from the owner (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0045], and [0052]).
As per claim 11, Chapman and Stone et al. teach the computer-implemented system of claim 2 described above. Chapman teaches wherein the one or more computer-readable storage media store an integrated inventory of items, the integrated inventory of items comprising the inventory of items associated with the home and an inventory of items offered for sale by a retailer or marketplace (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0045], and [0052]).
As per claim 12, Chapman and Stone et al. teach the computer-implemented system of claim 11 described above. Chapman teaches wherein the integrated inventory of items identifies items needed or desired for a project to be performed at the home (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0045], [0052] and [0076]-[0080]).
As per claim 13, Chapman and Stone et al. teach the computer-implemented system of claim 2 described above. Chapman teaches wherein the one or more computer processors are further programmed via the instructions to enable a user to manually update the data relating to the inventory of items that is stored in the one or more computer-readable storage media (see at least abstract; Figures 1-12; [0004]-[0006], [0022]-[0045] and [0052]-[0053]).
As per claim 14, claim 14 otherwise styled as method claim is equivalent of claim 2. Please see claim 2 rejection described above.
As per claim 15, claim 15 otherwise styled as method claim is equivalent of claim 3. Please see claim 3 rejection described above.
As per claim 16, claim 16 otherwise styled as method claim is equivalent of claim 4. Please see claim 4 rejection described above.
As per claim 17, claim 17 otherwise styled as method claim is equivalent of claim 5. Please see claim 5 rejection described above.
As per claim 18, claim 18 otherwise styled as method claim is equivalent of claim 6. Please see claim 6 rejection described above.
As per claim 19, claim 19 otherwise styled as method claim is equivalent of claim 7. Please see claim 7 rejection described above.
As per claim 20, claim 20 otherwise styled as method claim is equivalent of claim 8. Please see claim 8 rejection described above.
As per claim 21, claim 21 otherwise styled as method claim is equivalent of claim 9. Please see claim 9 rejection described above.
As per claim 22, claim 22 otherwise styled as method claim is equivalent of claim 10. Please see claim 10 rejection described above.
As per claim 23, claim 23 otherwise styled as method claim is equivalent of claim 11. Please see claim 11 rejection described above.
As per claim 24, claim 24 otherwise styled as method claim is equivalent of claim 12. Please see claim 12 rejection described above.
As per claim 25, claim 25 otherwise styled as method claim is equivalent of claim 13. Please see claim 13 rejection described above.
As per claim 26, claim 26 otherwise styled as non-transitory computer-readable storage media claim is equivalent of claim 2. Please see claim 2 rejection described above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are deemed not persuasive. The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. The claimed invention does not recite improvement to another technology or another technical field or the computing device. The claimed invention does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to 35 § 101 technological improvement, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s specification and claims do not describe technological improvements, or a specific improvement to the way system; one or more computer-readable storage media; and one or more computer processors, programmed via the instructions to; the one or more computer-readable storage media. Rather, Applicant’s specification and claims describe real property information management, retention and transferal. The claims do not to improve the performance of computers or any underlying technology; instead, the focus is to use generic computer, processor(s) and computer-readable storage media. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695