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 .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 10/30/2025 is entered. Claims 1, 4-5, and 9-12 are amended. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and claims 10-13 depend from claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-13 are to a system /apparatus, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
4.1. Claims 1-8
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A system, comprising:
a processor;
a communication device; and
a memory comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor- executable instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
(a receive a plurality of property criteria for a subject property, by the communication device from a user device in communication with the communication device, the plurality of property criteria including at least a property location and a property list price;
(b) receive a plurality of comparables criteria from a user device in communication with the communication device, the plurality of comparables criteria including at least a minimum list price and a maximum list price;
(c) calculate one or more suggested bid amount based at least in part on the plurality of property criteria, the plurality of comparables criteria, and a success threshold provided by a user, the success threshold being a percent chance of the one or more suggested bid amount being accepted for the subject property; and
(d) transmit an interactive interface to the user device, the interactive interface displaying the one or more suggested bid amount and operable to transmit a user feedback.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-8 recite abstract idea, because abstract idea is set forth and described in the claim. The highlighted limitations comprising, “ (i) receive a plurality of property criteria for a subject property from a user the plurality of property criteria including at least a property location and a property list price; (ii) receive a plurality of comparables criteria from a user the plurality of comparables criteria including at least a minimum list price and a maximum list price; (iii)calculate one or more suggested bid amount based at least in part on the plurality of property criteria, the plurality of comparables criteria, and a success threshold provided by a user, the success threshold being a percent chance of the one or more suggested bid amount being accepted for the subject property;”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, relate to a commercial process of being able to work out a bid amount to buy a residential property based on the collected user’s criteria as well his minimum and maximum price limit falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping.
The highlighted limitations comprising “ calculate one or more suggested bid amount based at least in part on the plurality of property criteria, the plurality of comparables criteria, and a success threshold provided by a user, the success threshold being a percent chance of the one or more suggested bid amount being accepted for the subject property”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a human based on collected property information and the minimum and maximum price can calculate and provide a reasonable bid amount for the specific property and display it. The data analysis and calculating steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could be performed in the human mind with a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8 recite a mental process (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-8: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising a generic computer processor in communication with a generic user device executing the steps of: (a) receive a plurality of property criteria for a subject property…..; (b) receive a plurality of comparables criteria…….; (c) calculate one or more suggested bid amount based at least in part on the plurality of property criteria, the plurality of comparables criteria, and a success threshold provided by a user…..; and (d) transmit an interactive interface to the user device, the interactive interface displaying the one or more suggested bid amount and operable to transmit a user feedback.
The limitations “ receive a plurality of property criteria for a subject property…..; and (b) receive a plurality of comparables criteria…..;” are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. The computer processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations (c) calculate one or more suggested bid amount based at least in part on the plurality of property criteria, the plurality of comparables criteria, and a success threshold provided by a user “, the computer processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations in (d) reciting “transmit an interactive interface to the user device, the interactive interface displaying the one or more suggested bid amount and operable to transmit a user feedback”, as drafted relates to providing a web page with an interactive interface such as GUI for displaying the calculated bid and receive the user’s response, is merely a generic computer function without providing any improvement over such generic computer functions. Further displaying the suggested bid amount on the interactive interface is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the bid from the calculating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Dependent claim 2 merely expands the scope of claim 1 of receiving additional/modified criteria for the property from the user and then repeating the same steps as already discussed for claim 1, claim 3-5 recite non-,functional subject matter describing the property criteria and the comparables criteria, and limitations in claims 6-8 merely expand the limitations in step (d) of providing interactive interfaces [on web pages] displaying new suggested bid, graphs presenting sales price, taxes, and other data related to the property which include mathematical concepts of generating graphs to show the relationships between two characteristics for a property. These additional limitations in the dependent claims 2-8, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea analyzed on the same basis as the limitations of the independent claim 1.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-8 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-8 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim (s) recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-8 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements comprising receiving data, transmitting data, displaying data were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration considers whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or 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).
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-8 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claims 1-8 are patent ineligible.
4.2. Claims 9-13
9. (Currently Amended) A system, comprising:
a processor; a communication device; and a memory comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor- executable instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
(a) cause an interactive interface on a user device to display a commuting tool;
(b) receive, from the user device, one or more commuting input indicative of commuting parameters comprising a first destination value, a first distance value for the first destination value, a second destination value, and a second distance value for the second destination value; and
( c) display a map interface on the user device, the map interface comprising a map based on the one or more commuting input and having a first distance indicator based on the first distance value and encircling the first destination value, a second distance indicator based on the second distance value and encircling the second destination value, one or more location pin within the first distance indicator and the second distance indicator.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 9-13 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations comprising, “ receive from the user one or more commuting input indicative of commuting parameters comprising a first destination value, a first distance value for the first destination value, a second destination value, and a second distance value for the second destination value; and display a map the map comprising a map based on the one or more commuting input and having a first distance indicator based on the first distance value and encircling the first destination value, a second distance indicator based on the second distance value and encircling the second destination value, one or more location pin within the first distance indicator and the second distance indicator”, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover manual performance in the mind using a pen and paper, falling within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas. but for the recitation of “by the vehicle controller”. That is, other than reciting “by a vehicle controller” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed manually in the mind using a pen and paper being able to analyze the collected information related to commuting to residential properties and provide a map using a pen and paper with the properties marked on it with the property attributes such as distance and listing amounts for those . For example, but for the “by the processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected for the residential properties , wherein the collected data includes distances to those properties and their values and then based on this information can provide a map with marked destinations using a pen and paper and displaying their distances and values. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-13 recite a mental process (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 9-13: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising a generic computer processor in communication with a user’s generic computer device (a) cause an interactive interface on a user device to display a commuting tool; (b) receive, from the user device, one or more commuting input indicative of commuting parameters comprising a first destination value, a first distance value for the first destination value, a second destination value, and a second distance value for the second destination value; and ( c) display a map interface on the user device, the map interface comprising a map based on the one or more commuting input and having a first distance indicator based on the first distance value and encircling the first destination value, a second distance indicator based on the second distance value and encircling the second destination value, one or more location pin within the first distance indicator and the second distance indicator.
The limitations in step (b) “ receive, from the user device, one or more commuting input indicative of commuting parameters comprising ……;” is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. The computer processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations” (a) ) cause on a generic interactive interface on the user device to display a commuting tool; and (c) display a map interface on the user device, the map interface comprising a map….. “, as drafted relates to displaying a commuting tool at web page enabling interaction via an interactive interface such as GUI to display, based on received commuting parameters from a user, one or more distance indicator which can be operated by a human operator by inputting his parameters which is a generic computer function and does not amount to an improvement on over existing generic computer function. Further displaying a commuting tool and a map with a distance indicator are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the tool and a distance indicator on a map as a result of manipulating the commuting tool ), and amount to mere pre and post solutions displaying, which are a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. Also, the limitations in steps (b) and (c) the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements in claim 9 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim 9 is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Dependent claim 10 merely expands the scope of claim 9 of reciting non-functional subject matter of describing the commuting parameters, and dependent claims 11-13 expand the scope of the base claim 9 limitations to display different distance indicators based on distance values, location pins for desired commuting parameters, and information on communities in the form of table, which as analyzed for claim 9 , which amount to mere pre and post solutions displaying, which are a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity and these are generic functions can be implemented by a human operator using the interactive GUI. The additional elements in the dependent claims 10-13, as analyzed for the base claim 9, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, claims 9-13 are directed to an abstract idea, because as analyzed above the limitations therein do not indicate: • An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; See MPEP 2106.05(a). or • an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(b). or • an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.29 an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo .
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 9-13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim (s) recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 9-13 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements comprising receiving data, transmitting data, displaying data were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration considers whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or 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).
Even when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 9-13 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
In view of the foregoing, all pending claims 1-13 are found to be patent ineligible.
3. Prior art discussion:
3.1. Claims 1-8:
The best prior art of record including Penner et al. [Penner et al. [US 20180053267 A1], hereinafter Penner cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/30/2025 and Wolf [US 20210056649A1; see paras 35-38, searched in view of the current amendments ], alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations comprising calculate one or more suggested bid amount based at least in part on the plurality of property criteria, the plurality of comparables criteria, and a success threshold provided by a user, the success threshold being a percent chance of the one or more suggested bid amount being accepted for the subject property. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1.
3.2. Claims 9-13:
The best prior art of Rubin et al. (US Pat. No. 10,859,394 B2), hereinafter Rubin, cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/30/2025 and Villena et al. [US 20120158459 A1; see claims 39-45, searched in view of the current amendments] do not teach at least the limitations comprising display a map interface on the user device, the map interface comprising a map based on the one or more commuting input and having a first distance indicator based on the first distance value and encircling the first destination value, a second distance indicator based on the second distance value and encircling the second destination value, one or more location pin within the first distance indicator and the second distance indicator. Claims 10-13 depend from claim 1.
3.3. The prior art considered pertinent to the claimed invention and relevant to the current amendments but not considered:
(i) Wolf [US 20210056649A1; see paras 35-38 describe teaches a system and method comprising receiving user metadata including location, types, interest information, search distance, etc., for real estate properties, wherein the search distance can be manipulated on a slider between a minimum and maximum distances. The property type inputs received can be residential, commercial, rental, lease, industrial, light industrial, retail, class A, class B, class C, and/or the like with . a property value setting 514 input. The property value setting 514 may be received, for example, via a slider selection and thereby be user configurable between a minimum price and a maximum price. A matching engine is used for processing the received user metadata.
(ii) Villena et al. [US 20120158459 A1, see claims 39-45] describes a system enabling each of the users’ remote terminals to generate a map-like display a geographic region including icons for each of a plurality of residential properties being spatially distributed relative to one another based on the geographic information, and (at least one AVM value for one of the plurality of residential properties, based on information received from a user, and each map-like display is configured to display a window containing at least an AVM value for each of a plurality of residential properties
Response to Arguments
4.1 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant's arguments filed in Remarks pages 7-15 on 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-8:
Step 2A, Prong One:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-9 that the claim 1 does not recite abstract idea, because the limitations, as analyzed above, doe “set forth” and “describe” Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes, as analyzed above. Applicant’s arguments are primarily directed to that the claim 1 limitations do not recite “Mental Processes”, which Examiner disagrees. The limitations of claim 1 comprising, “calculate one or more suggested bid amount based at least in part on the plurality of property criteria, the plurality of comparables criteria, and a success threshold provided by a user, the success threshold being a percent chance of the one or more suggested bid amount being accepted for the subject property”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a human operator, based on collected property information and the minimum and maximum price, can calculate and provide a reasonable bid amount for the specific property and display it. The data analysis and calculating steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could be performed in the human mind with a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Further, the limitations comprising (i) receive a plurality of property criteria for a subject property from a user the plurality of property criteria including …….; (ii) receive a plurality of comparables criteria from a user the plurality of comparables criteria including at least a minimum list price and a maximum list price; (iii)calculate one or more suggested bid amount …..;”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, relate to a commercial process of being able to work out a bid amount for a residential property based on the collected user’s property criteria as well his minimum and maximum price limits, which fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
Thus, claim1 with its dependent claims 2-8 do recite an abstract idea as per Step 2A, Prong One.
Claims 9-13:
Step 2A, Prong One:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-14 that the claim 9 does not recite abstract idea, because the limitations, as analyzed above, does “set forth” and “describe” Mental Processes, as analyzed above.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments that a human operator based on collected data related to properties cannot provide a map and display the properties destinations marked on a map and at the same time inscribing the property values and their distances from a specific point. For example , but for the “by the processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected for the residential properties , wherein the collected data includes distances to those properties and their values and then based on this information can provide a map with marked destinations using a pen and paper and displaying their distances and values. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 comprising, “ receive from the user one or more commuting input indicative of commuting parameters comprising a first destination value, a first distance value for the first destination value, a second destination value, and a second distance value for the second destination value; and display a map the map comprising a map based on the one or more commuting input and having a first distance indicator based on the first distance value and encircling the first destination value, a second distance indicator based on the second distance value and encircling the second destination value, one or more location pin within the first distance indicator and the second distance indicator”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover manual performance in the mind using a pen and paper, falling within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Thus, claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-13 do recite an abstract idea as per Step 2A, prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims 1-8:
Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11, and disagrees with the arguments “ Claim 1, therefore, is a specific, unconventional system that constitutes a technological improvement. Unlike a claim for the general idea of a solution, the present claim is limited to this particular way of achieving the outcome, thereby integrating any alleged abstract idea into a specific, practical, and technological application. In formulating the rejection, the Examiner stated that “Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.” Office Action, pg. 5. However, this is merely a conclusory statement. The Office has not provided any reasoning as to how the non-bolded portions of claim 1 in combination with the bolded portions of claim 1 fail to supply limitations over the bolded portions. Further, the Office has not evaluated the limitations of amended claim 1 “as a whole” or “as an ordered combination” as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(a). By dissecting the claim into individual steps, the Office has not analyzed any technological improvement that arises from the claim's specific ordered combination of limitations. Not viewing the claim as a whole may have led to a conclusion that the claim is merely for a desired outcome, when in fact it is narrowly tailored to a particular, unconventional technological solution. Applicant respectfully submits that the ordered combination of elements of independent claim 1, and of all claims depending thereon, improve the functioning of the technology as set forth above. More specifically, the currently pending claims do not simply “amount to mere instructions to apply an exception”, but rather, provides an improvement to computer technology in the field of real estate analysis and transforms the computer from a mere data repository into a practical application removed from the general abstract idea of "calculating a bid." The limitations of amended claim 1, when viewed in combination, are not "insignificant extra-solution activity" but are integral components of a specific, improved technological process. Therefore, the claims are eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two.”, because the Examiner has considered the additional elements both individually and in combination, and as per his when analyzed per Step 2A, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim 9 recites additional limitations
of using generic computer components comprising a generic computer processor in communication with a generic user communication device executing the steps of:
(a) receive a plurality of property criteria for a subject property…..;
(b) receive a plurality of comparables criteria…….; (
c) calculate one or more suggested bid amount based at least in part on the plurality of property criteria, the plurality of comparables criteria, and a success threshold provided by a user…..; and
(d) transmit an interactive interface to the user device, the interactive interface displaying the one or more suggested bid amount and operable to transmit a user feedback.
The limitations in steps (a) and (b) are mere data gathering about properties recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). The computer processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations (c) calculate one or more suggested bid amount based at least in part on the plurality of property criteria, the plurality of comparables criteria, and a success threshold provided by a user “, the computer processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or 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. The limitations in (d) reciting “transmit an interactive interface to the user device, the interactive interface displaying the one or more suggested bid amount and operable to transmit a user feedback”, as drafted relates to providing a web page with an interactive interface such as GUI for displaying the calculated bid and receive the user’s response, is merely a generic computer function without providing any improvement over such generic computer functions. Further displaying the suggested bid amount on the interactive interface is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the bid from the calculating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity.
Thus, contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, the additional elements of claim 1, when viewed both individually and in combination, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Claims 9-13:
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments , see page 14, “ ….. even assuming that the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claim as a whole integrates that exception into a practical application. The claim recites a specific improvement to computer interface and mapping technology. The Office’s analysis dissects the claim into generic steps, and does not appear to consider the claim as an "ordered combination" that provides a technological improvement. The ordered combination of causing an interface to display a tool, receiving specific sets of commuting inputs, and displaying a map with multiple, interrelated, and computationally generated distance indicators and location pins provides a new and specific tool for solving a technical problem: how to visually identify locations that satisfy multiple, distinct geographical constraints simultaneously. This is a particular solution to a technical problem, not merely the abstract idea of finding a location. This specific system that includes instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to receive particular inputs and display a specific, complex graphical output improves the functioning of the computer as a mapping and analysis tool. Therefore, claim 9 is eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two.”, because the additional elements in claim 9 comprising a processor in communication with a user device provides a web page to a user device to receive commuting parameters from a user device and in response displays a map presenting a map, based on the received parameters, with distance values of different properties along with the value of the properties. The additional limitations, as analyzed above, in step (b) “ receive, from the user device, one or more commuting input indicative of commuting parameters comprising ……;” is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity, and the computer processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations” (a) ) cause on a generic interactive interface on the user device to display a commuting tool; and (c) display a map interface on the user device, the map interface comprising a map….. “, as drafted relates to displaying a commuting tool at web page enabling interaction via an interactive interface such as GUI to display, based on received commuting parameters from a user, one or more distance indicator which can be operated by a human operator by inputting his parameters which is a generic computer function and does not amount to an improvement on over existing generic computer function. Further displaying a commuting tool and a map with a distance indicator are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the tool and a distance indicator on a map as a result of manipulating the commuting tool ), and amount to mere pre and post solutions displaying, which are a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. Also, the limitations in steps (b) and (c) the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the foregoing, when all the additional elements of claim 9 are considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim 9 is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B:
Claims 1-8
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12, “ Claim 1 recites significantly more than the purported abstract idea by providing an inventive concept in the specific combination of claim elements. The specific arrangement and ordered combination of elements are not routine or conventional. The inventive concept lies not only in the individual elements, but also in the specific combination of the individual elements to create a new and useful technological tool. The claimed process as a whole is not a well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field of real estate analysis. This specific ordered combination provides a technological solution to the problem of how to generate a bid with a quantifiable likelihood of success (i.e., success threshold), and thus constitutes an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that claims 1-8 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.”, because , as per Step 2B, the additional claim elements of claim 1, as analyzed above, when considered in combination, represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus claims 1-8 are patent ineligible.
Claim 9-13:
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15, “ The specific arrangement and ordered combination of elements in claim 9 are not routine or conventional. While computers can display maps and draw circles, the specific instructions that cause the processor to receive two sets of destination/distance parameters, display two corresponding distance indicators on a map, and one or more location pin, is not a well- understood, routine, or conventional activity. The inventive concept further lies in the specific combination of these features to create a new and useful commuting tool. This specific technological solution is significantly more than the abstract idea of analyzing locations. In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that claims 9-13 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.”, because mere displaying data such as distance indicators on a map and location pins , which are nothing but markers, on an interface amounts to mere “‘setting, displaying, and selecting’ data or information that is visible on the graphical user interface device, and does not amount to any improvement in the functioning of an interface.
The Step 2B analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. However, as analyzed above in the rejection of claims, the additional elements when considered in combination, represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus claims 9-13 are patent ineligible.
In view of the foregoing, the limitations of claims 1 and 9, as a whole, as recited, are not indicative of :
• An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; See MPEP 2106.05(a).
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(b).
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; see MPEP 2106.05(c).and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.29 an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo .
In view of the foregoing, the rejection of all pending claims 1-13 under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
4.2. Rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-17, and 19-21 filed 10/30/2025, with respect to rejection of claims 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the current amendments to the independent claim 1. The best prior art of Penner et al. [Penner et al. [US 20180053267 A1], hereinafter Penner cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/30/2025 and Wolf [US 20210056649A1; see paras 35-38] do not teach at least the limitations comprising calculate one or m