Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Amendment filed on December 23, 2025.
Claims 1-33 are cancelled.
Claims 34-53 are pending.
Claims 34-53 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260213 for references purposes only.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 recites “the plurality of sale transaction.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “the plurality of sale transactions.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 34, 49, and 52 recite “a ratio of listing price for the subject home of a sale transaction.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “a ratio of listing price for the subject home of the sale transaction.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 41 recites “a subset of the attributes that includes a listing price.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “a subset of the attributes that includes the listing price.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 2nd paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 34 recites “the plurality of sale transaction associated with the first plurality of homes.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this term. For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “a plurality of sale transactions associated with the first plurality of homes.” Claims 49 and 52 are similarly rejected.
Claim 34 recites “estimated and actual times on market for the second plurality of homes.” This phrase is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether this refers to “the estimated times on market and actual times on market for the second plurality of homes” or to “a new estimated and actual times on market for the second plurality of homes.” For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as the former. Claims 49 and 52 are similarly rejected.
Claim 43 recites “accessing, for each of the second plurality of homes that were listed for sale, the second plurality of homes being distinct from the first plurality of homes, values of attributes for the home including a listing price at which the home was listed for sale, and listing information including the length of time the home was on the real estate market and the result of the at least one home listing transaction.” This phrase is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether this refers to “the values of attributes for the home”, “the listing price”, “the listing information”, “the length of time”, and “the result” previously recited in claim 34, or to “second values of attributes for the home”, “a second listing price”, “second listing information”, “second length of time”, and “a second result.” For purposes of applying the prior art, Examiner will interpret as the latter.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner hereby adopts the following definitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), Examiner points to these other sources to support her interpretation of the claims.1 Additionally, these definitions are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
configuration “(1) (A) (software) The arrangement of a computer system or component as defined by the number, nature, and interconnections of its constituent parts.” “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to hardware configuration or software configuration.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
processor “(2) (software) A computer program that includes the compiling, assembling, translating, and related functions for a specific programming language, for example, Cobol processor, Fortran processor.” IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Edition, IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, Dec. 2000.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
1 While most definition(s) are cited because these terms are found in the claims, Examiner may have provided additional definition(s) to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the definitions themselves or in the prior art.