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 first remarks about a previous statement concerning a non-conforming IDS sheet. Corrections have been performed within the Office and Applicant is correct that the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner and the previous statement is withdrawn.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step One of eligibility analysis, the claims recite method and a system; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories considered appropriate subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the claims recite a method of collaboration among a plurality of users for the selling of an asset. The collaboration includes authenticating users, listing and displaying selling parameters, receiving offers, and completing a sale of the asset. Thus, the claims describe a marketplace and the interactions among buyers and sellers who participate in the marketplace. This marketplace and the social activities inherent within it describe social activities of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claims describe certain methods of organizing human activity, which is an abstract idea.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claims 14 and 20, contains elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a processor associated with a digital platform implemented as a Software- as-a-Service (SaaS), from a plurality of users associated with respective user devices, user credentials for the digital platform, wherein the digital platform is accessible as a standalone application or as a plugin to a third-party application via an integrated Application Programming Interface (API);
authenticating, by the processor, the plurality of users based on the user credentials stored in a database;
receiving, by the processor, a set of selling parameters corresponding to an asset from a first user, of the plurality of users, associated with a first user device;
dynamically estimating, by the processor, a price of the asset based at least on the set of selling parameters;
displaying, by the processor, the asset and the set of selling parameters on the respective user devices of the plurality of users via the digital platform;
receiving, by the processor, one or more offer prices for the asset from one or more second users, of the plurality of users, associated with one or more second user devices;
implementing Global Positioning System (GPS) techniques to assist the one or more second users in reaching an exact location of the asset;
establishing, by the processor, a communication connection between the plurality of users including the first user and the one or more second users when a transaction of the asset is authorized by the first user and the one or more second users, the communication connection being established to enable the first user and the one or more second users to complete the transaction of the asset via the digital platform;
executing, by the processor, the transaction of the asset between the first user and the one or more second users via the digital platform: and
automatically marking, by the processor, the asset as sold.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of eligibility 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.”
Claims 1, 14, and 20, recite only the following additional elements:
computer-implemented;
a processor associated with a digital platform implemented as a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), wherein the digital platform is accessible as a standalone application or as a plugin to a third-party application via an integrated Application Programming Interface (API);
a database;
user devices;
Global Positioning System (GPS) techniques;
a communication connection;
a memory operatively coupled with the processor, wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their disclosure, at Specification [0067, 0069, and 0088]. Currently amended elements are also generically defined, see Specification [0070 and Figure 1 as well as 0079]. Simply implementing the abstract ideas on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Further, use of a mobile device and its gps capability as the technique to assist a user to reach a location is descriptive of using a machine in its ordinary capacity as also defined in this section as merely using a tool to perform an existing process.
At Step 2B, of 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 by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (a processor associated with a digital platform implemented as a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS); a database; user devices; Global Positioning System (GPS) techniques; a communication connection; a memory operatively coupled with the processor, wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions; a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 12, and 15, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1 and 14. Recitations to similar assets within a predetermined area, offer prices and information, and selling parameters (of the asset) are further descriptions of an asset offered for sale and its location; therefore, they are directed to the managing of the interactions and social activities of a plurality of users – or, organizing human activity. Further, these claims merely describe using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – the computer-implemented system according to claims 1 and 14. These limitations, alone and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 – 8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 - 19, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1 and 14. Recitations to agents, users, agent identifiers, offers from an agent, and the plurality of users, are further descriptions of the human who are interacting and whose activities are organized. Further, these claims merely describe using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – the computer-implemented system according to claims 1 and 14. These limitations, alone and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1 – 20 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 12 – 15, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejanovic (US 2021/0224936), in view of Breaker (US 2012/0311431), in view of Liu (US 2021/0118074), in view of Thomas (US 8,433,650), further in view of Gerhardt (US 2016/0035053).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, Dejanovic discloses:
a computer-implemented method: (see [0161] detailing a real estate management platform implemented on a computer network system);
receiving, by the processor, a set of selling parameters corresponding to an asset from a first user, of the plurality of users, associated with a first user device; (see sellers entering MLS data (parameters as defined within the instant application), at [0091], as well as [0169-0172] where property features are elaborated);
dynamically estimating, by the processor, a price of the asset based at least on the set of selling parameters; (see [0030] and Figure 15, detailing valuation estimates; see also [0075] where Dejanovic’s invention facilitates the real estate transaction by carrying out one or more steps of the valuation process using information including user submitted data);
displaying, by the processor, the asset and the set of selling parameters on the respective user devices of the plurality of users via the digital platform; (see [0067] teaching a buyer and a seller dashboard displayed on a gui);
receiving, by the processor, one or more offer prices for the asset from one or more second users, of the plurality of users, associated with one or more second user devices; (see [0042] teaching an offer portal on the buyer dashboard).
Not disclosed by Dejanovic is:
a digital platform implemented as a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), wherein the digital platform is accessible as a standalone application or as a plugin to a third-party application via an integrated Application Programming Interface (API);
authenticate the plurality of users based on the user credentials stored in a database;
implement Global Positioning System (GPS) techniques to assist the one or more second users in reaching an exact location of the asset;
establish a communication connection between the plurality of users including the first user and the one or more second users when a transaction of the asset is authorized by the first user and the one or more second users, the communication connection being established to enable the first user and the one or more second users to complete the transaction of the asset via the digital platform; execute the transaction of the asset between the first user and the one or more second users via the digital platform; and automatically mark the asset as sold.
However, regarding item a) above, Breaker discloses a property website and teaches SaaS, APIs, and plug-ins as website generators (digital platforms). See [0020, 0039, and 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize SaaS, APIs, or plug-ins, per the method of Breaker, within Dejanovic’s web based real estate transaction management platform because this provides for known techniques in the art for implementing transactions on a computing system. Breaker alludes to the generality and familiar architecture of these system components to effectuate the programs at [0019].
However, regarding item b) above, Liu discloses a digital real estate transaction processing platform and teaches requiring a user seeking access to authenticate their identity by inputting credentials, at [0029]. Further, this data is stored in a database; see [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have users authenticate with credentials, per the method of Liu, within Dejanovic’s web based real estate transaction management platform because this provides for the intended result of having only verified participants be able to participate in these private transactions. Registration, log-ins, verifications, and authentication are all known in the art as useful techniques to provide for privacy and security in the method. Liu discusses at [0025].
However, regarding item c) above, Thomas discloses a home settlement system and teaches “GPS-enabled wireless computing device or cell phone for navigation to selected homes.” [57:3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have use GPS techniques, per the method of Thomas, within Dejanovic’s web based real estate transaction management platform because this a simple technique to employ within ordinary and ubiquitous devices as discussed at [53:56].
However, regarding item d) above, Gerhardt discloses a web-based real estate transaction system and teaches, first, authorized users communicating within the system, see [0047]; limits the completing of real estate closings (executing a transaction) to authorized participants, at [0003], and completes the transaction once the parties agree to terms (executing a transaction), at [0077]; and marks “completed deals” (marks asset as sold), at [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have authorized users communicate and complete a transaction, per the method of Gerhardt, within Dejanovic’s web based real estate transaction management platform because this is a common practice in real estate closings; a buyer and seller need to communicate about terms of the transactions, and completing a real estate closing requires common forms to be signed by both parties; hence, the need to communicate to close the deal. Gerhardt’s method ensures the users are authorized and are able to communicate within the system once an imminent transactions is afoot. See discussion of the method at [0048].
Regarding claims 2 and 15, the combination of Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, and Gerhardt, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 14, above.
Further disclosed by Dejanovic is wherein the price of the asset is further based on one or more similar assets located within a predetermined area from the asset; (see [0075], where an evaluation process includes user selected location, comparable properties, and specified areas of interest. A comparable property known in the industry as a similar property.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, and Gerhardt, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Further disclosed by Dejanovic is displaying, by the processor, the one or more offer prices, received from the one or more second users, in real-time on the respective user devices of the plurality of users via the digital platform; (see [0177-0180], where an offer portal for displaying offers and their status as well as notifications about updates is described. This real-time updating is analogous to the instant application’s definition, at [0074] – “…the plurality of users may use the digital platform 134 to, but not limited to, buy or sell assets, view information related to the assets rendered by the digital platform 134, update real-time information about the assets, submit offers for the assets, and the like…”.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, and Gerhardt, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Further disclosed by Dejanovic is wherein the set of selling parameters comprises information corresponding to at least one of square footage, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, basement, Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system, water supply, sewage system, roof, water heater, electrical system, built year, images of the asset, location, or any combination thereof; (see [0167 and Figure 26], detailing a user generating a listing, adding information including, “information regarding details of the property, for example, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, size of property, number of stories, and the like”.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, and Gerhardt, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed by Dejanovic is wherein the plurality of users comprises at least one of buyers, sellers, agents of the buyers, agents of the sellers, attorneys, landlords, and service providers, wherein the first user corresponds to the sellers, and wherein the one or more second users corresponds to the buyers.
However, Liu teaches the registered users of the digital real estate transaction processing platform include buyers, sellers, agents, etc. See [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include all these entities, per the method of Liu, within Dejanovic’s web based real estate transaction management platform because this provides for the intended result of having only verified participants be able to participate in these private transactions. All these parties are intimate to the buyers and sellers and are necessary third-party participants. Liu discusses at [0025].
Claims 4 – 10 and 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, and Gerhardt, further in view of Richards (US 2020/0184583).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the combination of Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, and Gerhardt, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 14, above.
Not disclosed is receiving, by the processor, a query to search for an agent [or attorney] on the digital platform; displaying, by the processor, a list of agents [or attorneys] associated with the digital platform based on the query; receiving, by the processor, a selection of the agent [or attorneys] from the list of agents; associating, by the processor, the selected agent [or attorney] with an identifier of the transaction of the asset; and establishing, by the processor, the communication connection between the first user, the one or more second users, and the agent [or attorney] to facilitate the completion of the transaction of the asset.
However, Richards discloses a method for marketing real estate and teaches a method of collecting user profiles, real estate profiles (asset information), and contact information for broker or agent, and communicates and connects these entities; [Abstract]. Further agent information, linking the agents to the listing (asset) is discussed at [0031]. [0069] continues to discuss the connecting (linking via communication) the user and an agent of the listing. Richards summarizes the agent facilitating the transaction at [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to search and select an agent or attorney for a real estate transaction, per the method of Richards, within Dejanovic’s web based real estate transaction management platform, because these are all well known in the entities who are involved in a real estate settlement process as discussed at [0034].
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the combination of Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, Gerhardt, and Richards, discloses all the limitations of claims 4 and 16, above.
Not disclosed is wherein the query is received from at least one of the first user of the first user device, and the one or more second users of the one or more second user devices.
However, Liu teaches a plurality of users (“client devices 115a-115n”); similarly disclosed within the instant application at Figure 1. Next, see [0045] detailing the registered users of the Liu’s digital real estate transaction processing platform includes a multitude of buyers, sellers, agents, etc.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include all these entities, per the method of Liu, within Dejanovic’s web based real estate transaction management platform because this provides for the intended result of having only verified participants be able to participate in these private transactions. All these parties are intimate to the buyers and sellers and are necessary third-party participants. Liu discusses at [0025].
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the combination of Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, Gerhardt, and Richards, discloses all the limitations of claims 4 and 16, above.
Not disclosed is wherein the query comprises at least one of username of the agent, e-mail identifier (ID) of the agent, the identifier of the transaction, or any combination thereof.
However, Liu suggests that user profiles for the platform can include an agent’s name. See [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include contact information, per the method of Liu, within Dejanovic’s web based real estate transaction management platform because this provides for the intended result of having only verified participants be able to participate in these private transactions. All these parties are intimate to the buyers and sellers and are necessary third-party participants. Liu discusses contacting these entities at [0025].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, Gerhardt, and Richards, discloses all the limitations of claim 4, above.
Further disclosed by Dejanovic is receiving, by the processor, from the one or more second users, a tour request corresponding to the asset; and scheduling, by the processor, a tour of the asset based on an availability of the first user, the one or more second users, and the agent; (see [0174] detailing a web page for requesting a showing of a property; see also Figure 40. Further, at [0175], Dejanovic suggests showing availability of buyer and seller. See also Figure 43.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, Gerhardt, and Richards, discloses all the limitations of claim 4, above.
Further disclosed by Dejanovic is receiving, by the processor, from the one or more second users via the agent, offer information corresponding to the one or more offer prices; (see [0177-0180].detailing an offer portal for displaying offers).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, Gerhardt, and Richards, discloses all the limitations of claim 8, above.
Further disclosed by Dejanovic is wherein the offer information comprises at least one of: offer price, closing date, type of funding, elected contingencies, or any combination thereof; (see [0042] and Figure 46 .detailing an offer portal for offer prices).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the combination of Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, Gerhardt, and Richards, discloses all the limitations of claims 4 and 16, above.
Further disclosed by Dejanovic is receiving, by the processor, from the first user of the first user device via the agent, a selection of an offer price from the one or more offer prices; (see [0179] and Figure 48, detailing a seller (or agent) accepting an offer (from buyer or agent) via the dashboard.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, Gerhardt, and Richards, further in view of McGee (US 2019/0318433).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Dejanovic, Breaker, Liu, Thomas, Gerhardt, and Richards discloses all the limitations of claim 10, above.
Not disclosed is receiving, by the processor, from the first user of the first user device, commission amount data corresponding to the selection of the offer price.
However, McGee discloses a real estate marketplace system and teaches “[a]n offer may be generated by an agent that includes services or fees that are specific to the buyer request or seller request of a particular buyer or seller (e.g., a specific commission rate, etc.)” See [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine any commission of fee, per the method of McGee, within Dejanovic’s web based real estate transaction management platform because, this is pertinent information that most buyers and sellers need to identify when entering into a real estate transaction. McGee adds a next obvious step of including this information to a display and accounts for this data’s importance at [0069].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 8. Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea; rather, that amended claim 1 “is directed to technological improvement in the way computer-based platforms acquire, process, synchronize, and disseminate structured real estate data across multiple devices.” See page 12. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
At Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The amended claims set forth a method for collaborating among a plurality of users to sell an asset (typically real estate). Those specific elements that describe the method include: receiving user credentials, authenticating the users, receiving selling parameters (property information, ([Specification 0179], further defined as typical MLS data, see [0029]), estimating a price, displaying the asset and parameters, receiving offers, assist[ing] users in reaching a location, executing the transaction, and marking the asset as sold. These several elements are all common marketplace activities performed by humans in their social atmosphere when acting in everyday tasks. Selling any home (or other asset) has long been performed by a plurality of users (buyers, sellers, agents) and past and current auctions can be performed by pen and paper. It is further noted that the groupings of abstract ideas, including certain methods of organizing human activity, can encompass activity of a single person and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. The number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Therefore, Applicant’s argument that the amended claims do not fall within the category of managing interactions between people is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10 – 12 that the amended claims provide implementations of a solution for delineated problems listed on pages 10 – 11, and remarks on page 11 that amended claim 1 recites “…specific technical steps executed by processing circuitry to handle structured real estate transaction datasets in a manner that address … technical problems in conventional real estate platforms.” (Emphasis added). These arguments align with Applicant’s remarks regarding analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two, on page 12. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant and based on the discussion that follows, the Examiner finds these arguments not persuasive.
Analysis under Step 2A Prong Two requires the Examiner to evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed at MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Applicant lists certain problems, on page 10, that the present invention solves. Applicant continues, on page 11, that amended claim 1 recites technical steps that address those problems. Further, Applicant’s disclosure describes a need for an improved computer-implemented method for facilitating completion of transactions and collaborating with users in the real estate business. That is, Applicant seeks to “…enhance the overall efficiency in real estate transactions.” Specification [0009]. The Examiner cannot find a technical problem that has been identified that the generically detailed components would be solving. As Applicant notes, the processor is utilized to gather data, such as; “square footage, HVAC system details, construction year,…digital images…”. The processor then estimates value, authenticates users, and guides users to a location. None of these elements are technical problems, nor has Applicant claimed a problem in how to gather this data. Applicant has merely recited how to perform this asset transaction on a device. Thus, describing merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as well as using other machinery (user devices) in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further remarks about utilizing a cloud-based SaaS platform with modules and argues the claimed method constitutes an improvement in the functioning of a computer-based real estate transaction system. See page 13. This argument is not persuasive. Similar to the discussion above, no improvement as to how data is gathered, prices are estimated, or transactions are authorized is present in the claims. Rather, Applicant is contending that using SaaS architecture and a digital platform somehow improve the technical environment. However, as noted above, this technology is used to collaborate within a marketplace and describes how to implement a real estate transaction with a computer. Applicant has not detailed what the SaaS architecture improves, rather, Applicant has illustrated a system embodied as a standalone server or as SaaS. Thereby reciting non-specific, generic, ordinary devices to operate as usual. Further, “[t]he described methods or processes may be executed, provided, or implemented for a user or one or more computing devices via a computer-program product such as via an application programming interface (API).” Specification [0221]. Because Applicant is merely making a broad assertion of improvements to technology and the claims describe no more than use of a computer to perform an abstract idea, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues next about analysis at Step 2B and whether the claims recite significantly more. See page 14. The Examiner finds these arguments not persuasive. First, when analyzing at Step 2B, the Examiner has determined and detailed above 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 by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As delineated earlier, the additional elements of: (a processor associated with a digital platform implemented as a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS); a database; user devices; Global Positioning System (GPS) techniques; a communication connection; a memory operatively coupled with the processor, wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions; a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Applicant’s arguments about amended independent claims 14 and 20, on page 15, are not persuasive. Similar to the discussion about amended claim 1, and based on similar reasoning, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant next argues rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C § 103. See page 16. In view of the amendments to the claims and updated prior art search, a new rejection for all claims is contained within this Office Action. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s remarks. Previous cited prior art, Dejanovic discloses a web-based real estate transaction management platform. Newly cited art, Breaker and Son, teach newly added elements such as a SaaS and API as well as GPS techniques. As such, amended claims 1, 14, and 20, are taught or suggested by the combination of cited prior art. Applicant’s arguments are 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 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629