DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
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 response to an application dated January 20, 2026. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114
Response
101 Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The analysis in line with current 101 guidelines. Even if the abstract idea is deemed to be novel, the abstract idea is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
“In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
Step 1 For this analysis and illustration purposes; claim 10, which recites limitations similar to independent claims 1 and 19 recites as follows:
10. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processing circuit, transaction data of a person, wherein the transaction data corresponds to historical transaction of the person,
identifying, based on the transaction data, a category associated with at least one of the historical transactions;
determining, based on the transaction data, proximity parameters of the person, wherein the proximity parameters correspond to a proximity to at least one merchant belonging to the category;
receiving property data relating to real estate properties;
selecting one or more models based on the proximity parameters and the property data by:
determining a desired output of the one or more models; and
identifying, based on the proximity parameters and the property data, at least one of the one or more models that generates the desired output with a highest relevance to the person, wherein the one or more models comprise at least one of a machine learning model, a statistical model, or a pattern recognition model;
modeling, using the at least one of the one or more models, the property data with the proximity parameters to generate property match data for the person, wherein the property match data corresponds to a plurality
generating and providing, to a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device, an interface corresponding to the property match data,
the interface comprising an element corresponding to each of the plurality of the real estate properties
determining distances between each of the plurality of the real estate properties and the at least one merchant belonging to the category; and
automatically rearranging on the graphical user interface, at least one of the elements corresponding to the plurality of the real estate properties based on a distance between the real estate properties and the at least one merchant belonging to the category.”
2A, Prong One,
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention is directed to a method of organizing human activity that are commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. This entails customer profiling in which recommendations of custom or personalized offers are based on purchase history or patterns.(see App. Spec. paras. 0032-0035)
Reviewing the accessed data and making a determination based on predefined criteria as recited in the claims are nothing more than gathering data and applying a set of instructions to the data. This suggests comparing information based on predefined criteria in which the data elements are mapped to a defined format (see App. Spec. paras. 0032-0035).
[0032] The content generated by the content control circuit 128 can include customized dashboards, such as those described in detail below, with reference to FIGS. 4-10. The content control circuit 128 can generate customized user-interactive dashboards for one or more entities, such as the user device 140, based on data received from the user device 140, data source 170, and/or any other computing device described therein. The generated dashboards can include various data (e.g., data stored in the content control circuit 128 and/or modeling dataset 122) associated with one or more real estate properties such as valuations, photographs or videos, descriptions, and/or others. In certain embodiments, the property match system 110 includes an application programming interface (API) and/or a software development kit (SDK) that facilitate the integration of other applications with the property match system 110. For example, the property match system 110 is configured to utilize the functionality of the user device 140 interacting through an API.
[0033] The content control circuit 128 can generate an interface corresponding to the property match data (e.g., generated by the modeler circuit 124). In some instances, the interface may include elements illustrating the real estate properties that include an accessibility to one or more of the lifestyle factors of the person. For example, the interface may include a first real estate property and a second real estate property that are associated with an element indicating that the first real estate property and the second real estate property are within a ten minute walk of a grocery store after determining that a person frequently visits grocery stores. In some instances, the interface may include elements illustrating the real estate properties that may be afforded by the person. For example, the interface may include a first real estate property that is associated with an element indicating that a person can afford the first real estate property.
[0034] The input/output device 132 is structured to receive communications from and provide communications to users associated with the property match system 110. The input/output device 132 can be structured to exchange data, communications, instructions, etc. with an input/output component of the property match system 110 (e.g., a mouse, a monitor, a keyboard, etc.). As such, the input/output device 132 may provide an interface for the user to interact with various applications stored on the property match system 110.
[0035] The user device 140 is owned, operated, controlled, and/or otherwise associated with a person (e.g., a person looking to acquire a real estate property, etc.). In some embodiments, the user device 140 may be or may include, for example, a desktop or laptop computer (e.g., a tablet computer), a smartphone, a wearable device (e.g., a smartwatch), a personal digital assistant, and/or any other suitable computing device. The user devices 140 may each include a network interface 142, a processing circuit 144, and an input/output device 160. The network interface 142, the processing circuit 144, and the input/output device 160 may be structured and function substantially similar to and include the same or similar components as the network interface 112, the processing circuit 114, and the input/output device 132 described above, with reference to the property match system 110. Therefore, it should be understood that the description of the network interface 112, the processing circuit 114, and the input/output device 132 of the property match system 110 provided above may be similarly applied to the network interface 142, the processing circuit 144, and the input/output device 160 of each of the user devices 140. The network interface 142 may similarly facilitate secure communications between the user device 140 and various other components of the computing environment 100. The processing circuit 144 similarly includes a memory 150 and a processor 146. The memory 150 and the processor 146 are substantially similar to the memory 120 and the processor 116 described above. Accordingly, the user devices 140 are similarly configured to run a variety of application programs and store associated data in a database of the memory 150. The variety of application programs and associated data may be stored as user device dataset 152.
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements recite hardware components such as a computing device (processor, network, computer - see App. Spec. paras. 0024, 0025-0027, 0035, 0042) there does not appear to be any technology being improved.
They are described at a high level of generality where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
Unlike, McRO, the present claims contain improvements to the context in which the mapping of transactions are executed and not one of a technology or technological field.
Although the claims recite:
modeling, using the at least one of the one or more models, the property data with the proximity parameters to generate property match data for the person, wherein the property match data corresponds to a plurality
generating and providing, to a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device, an interface corresponding to the property match data,
the interface comprising an element corresponding to each of the plurality of the real estate properties
determining distances between each of the plurality of the real estate properties and the at least one merchant belonging to the category; and
automatically rearranging on the graphical user interface, at least one of the elements corresponding to the plurality of the real estate properties based on a distance between the real estate properties and the at least one merchant belonging to the category”
it appears to be focused on evaluating information received using machine learning models based on historical information, absent is any support for the claims as recited for how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the evaluation process.
As recited it suggests a process similar to a feedback loop in which feedback is used to update the data fed the model. Although it is evaluating data albeit from “property data”, absent is any support for the claims as recited for how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the evaluation process.
In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field of matching up data based on a predefined format because the data processing performed merely uses a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The invention as claimed recites a generic computer component and the claim does not pass step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B; The next step is to identify any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The additional elements are for example., processor - see App. specification, paras. 0024-0029, 0035, 0042; Fig. 1) which is disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality. Absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
Likewise, the dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 provide additonal details about the elements or and attributes of the predefined rules are applied to the evaluation process. For example, claims 11-13 provide additional details about the different attributes of the type of data and rules applied as part of the mapping process used to identify the recommendations do not address the issues raised in the independent claims and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 including dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Independent Claim 10, which is illustrative of the independent claim 14 and 20 recite:
10. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processing circuit, transaction data of a person, wherein the transaction data corresponds to historical transaction of the person,
identifying, based on the transaction data, a category associated with at least one of the historical transactions;
determining, based on the transaction data, proximity parameters of the person, wherein the proximity parameters correspond to a proximity to at least one merchant belonging to the category;
receiving property data relating to real estate properties;
selecting one or more models based on the proximity parameters and the property data by:
determining a desired output of the one or more models; and
identifying, based on the proximity parameters and the property data, at least one of the one or more models that generates the desired output with a highest relevance to the person, wherein the one or more models comprise at least one of a machine learning model, a statistical model, or a pattern recognition model;
modeling, using the at least one of the one or more models, the property data with the proximity parameters to generate property match data for the person, wherein the property match data corresponds to a plurality
generating and providing, to a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device, an interface corresponding to the property match data,
the interface comprising an element corresponding to each of the plurality of the real estate properties
determining distances between each of the plurality of the real estate properties and the at least one merchant belonging to the category; and
automatically rearranging on the graphical user interface, at least one of the elements corresponding to the plurality of the real estate properties based on a distance between the real estate properties and the at least one merchant belonging to the category.”
2A, Prong One,
Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention is directed to a method of organizing human activity that are commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. This entails customer profiling in which recommendations of custom or personalized property match offers are based on purchase history or patterns.(see App. Spec. para. 0005 – “ In some arrangements, the operations also include receiving financial data of the person. In some arrangements, the financial data corresponds to financial factors of the person. In some arrangements, the operations also include determining, based on the transaction data, proximity parameters of the person. In some arrangements, the proximity parameters correspond to a proximity to at least one merchant belonging to the category associated with the transaction. In some arrangements, the operations also include determining, based on the financial data, financial parameters of the person. In some arrangements, the financial parameters correspond to a maximum property value the person can afford. In some arrangements, the operations also include receiving property data relating to real estate properties. In some arrangements, the operations also include modeling the property data with the proximity parameters and the financial parameters to generate the property match data for the person. In some arrangements, the property match data corresponds to at least one of the real estate properties that has a valuation less than the maximum property value and includes the proximity to the at least one merchant belonging to the category associated with the transaction. In some arrangements, the operations also include generating and providing, to a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device, an interface corresponding to the property match data. see also App. Spec. paras. 0032-0035).
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components (e.g., processor - see App. specification, paras. 0024-0029, 0035, 0042; Fig. 1). This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular because the claim only recites generic computer components for transmitting or and receiving data.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g., computing device – see App. Spec. paras. 0026-0027, 0035, 0042) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Further, the dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20, for example, recite additional descriptive details about the criteria or rules applied to the making the assessment. For example, claims 11-13 describe the details of the data received included in the assessment, however the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite generic computer components (e.g., general-purpose computer) to evaluate the submitted data based on predefined conditions.
The dependent claims provide additional descriptions of the components of the claimed invention in a manner that merely refines and further limits the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10 and 19 do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of the independent claims.
None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rasori, USP No. 20230385930, Mortgage Trading Systems and Methods
Stawar, USP Pub. No. 20080237339, Integration of Customer-Stored Information with Media Enabled Shopping Systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM 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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 571 272-3955. 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019
Prosecution Insights