DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims X are canceled.
Claims X are new.
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined.
This action is in reply to the papers filed on 10/28/2025 (effective filing date 06/29/2018).
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has been filed.
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted: xxxxxxxx, has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on 10/27/2023 as modified by the amendment filed on 10/28/2025.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on xxx disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Pat. No. 11,276,090 has been reviewed and has been placed in the file.
Double Patenting - Withdrawn
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn per the filed terminal disclaimer noted above.
Reasons For Allowance
Prior-Art Rejection withdrawn
Claims xxx are allowed. The closest prior art (See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited) does not teach the claimed:
The invention teaches… and the prior-art teaches…, however, the prior-art does not teach…
The closest prior-art (Gary, JR. et al. 2017/0061507, Ritter 2016/0292750, Sinnard et al. US 8,010,906, Gholami et al. 2017/0109413) teach the features as disclosed in Non-final Rejection (xxxx), however, these cited references do not teach and the prior-art does not teach at least the following:
determining, at a second time after associating the information corresponding to the first loyalty card with the logged location, that a second user computing device is located within a specified distance of the logged location using a second positioning system of the second user computing device; in response to determining that the second user computing device is located within the specified distance of the logged location of the first user computing device at the first time of detecting: retrieving information corresponding to a second loyalty card, the second loyalty card being associated with the merchant and the second user computing device; and displaying, by the second user computing device, data describing the second loyalty card.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101 - Withdrawn
Per Applicant’s amendments and arguments and considering new guidance in the MPEP, the rejections are withdrawn. Specifically, in Applicant’s Remarks (dated 03/14/2017, pgs. 8-11), Applicant traverses the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing that the amended claims recite new limitations that are not abstract, amount to significantly more, are directed to a practical application, etc… For example, Applicant argues….
In support of their arguments, Applicant cites to the following recent Fed. Cir. court cases (i.e., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, Berkheimer, Core Wireless, McRO, Enfish, Bascom, DDR, etc…).
Claim Objection
Per Applicants’ amendments, the objection is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of anticipatory-nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,276,090.
18/496,192 – Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A method of data processing, comprising:
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. A method of data processing, comprising:
18/496,192 – Claim 1. receiving, from a user interface of a user device, an indication of one or more priorities in association with a property value;
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. receiving, from a user interface of a user device, an indication of one or more priorities in association with a property value;
18/496,192 – Claim 1. generating a priority data object, wherein generating the priority data object comprises:
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. generating a priority data object, wherein generating the priority data object comprises:
18/496,192 – Claim 1. receiving, from the user interface, an impact description selection, at least one current descriptor, a benefit description selection, and at least one ideal descriptor;
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. receiving, from the user interface and for the at least one ideal descriptor corresponding to the unknown property, at least one benefit description selection from a listing of benefit descriptions, and
18/496,192 – Claim 1. applying a first value per impact description selection and a second value per a number of at least one current descriptor received to a first rolling sum for each priority of the one or more priorities, a first weight being applied to the first rolling sum based on an impact scoring metric;
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: applying a first value per impact description selection and a second value per a number of the at least one current descriptor received to a first rolling sum for each priority of the one or more priorities, a first weight being applied to the first rolling sum based on the impact scoring metric;
18/496,192 – Claim 1. applying the first value per benefit description selection and the second value per a number of an at least one ideal descriptor received to a second rolling sum for each priority of the one or more priorities, a second weight being applied to the second rolling sum based on an ideal scoring metric;
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 4. applying the first value per benefit description selection and the second value per a number of the at least one ideal descriptor received to a second rolling sum for each priority of the one or more priorities, a second weight being applied to the second rolling sum based on the ideal scoring metric; and
18/496,192 – Claim 1. iterating the generating for each of the one or more priorities;
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. iterating the generating for each of the one or more priorities;
18/496,192 – Claim 1. generating a value gap metric based on the first rolling sum for each of the one or more priorities and the second rolling sum for each of the one or more priorities;
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 4. generating the value gap metric based on the first rolling sum for each of the one or more priorities and the second rolling sum for each of the one or more priorities.
18/496,192 – Claim 1. generating a property value data object including priority data objects corresponding to each of the one or more priorities;
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. generating a property value data object including each of the priority data objects and a value gap metric, the value gap metric calculated using the impact scoring metric and the ideal scoring metric for each of the one or more priorities;
18/496,192 – Claim 1. causing the user interface to display one or more prompts to collect evaluation data for one or more visited properties based on the property value data object, the evaluation data including ratings for each of the one or more visited properties in each of the one or more priorities;
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. receiving evaluation data for one or more visited properties, theevaluation data including ratings for each of the one or more visited properties in each of the one or more priorities; and
18/496,192 – Claim 1. receiving, from the user interface, evaluation data for the one or more visited properties; and
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. receiving evaluation data for one or more visited properties, the evaluation data including ratings for each of the one or more visited properties in each of the one or more priorities; and
18/496,192 – Claim 1. generating a value score for each of the one or more visited properties based on the property value data object and the received evaluation data of each of the one or more visited properties.
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. generating a value score for each of the one or more visited properties based on the property value data object and the received evaluation data of each of the one or more visited properties.
18/496,192 – Claim 2. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a prompt based on whether the at least one current descriptor corresponding to a known property is selected from a listing of positive descriptors or the listing of negative descriptors.
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. generating a prompt based on whether the at least one current descriptor corresponding to the known property is selected from the listing of positive descriptors or the listing of negative descriptors,
18/496,192 – Claim 3. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein generating the value score further comprises: adding, for a first property, the ratings in each of the one or more priorities for the first property; weighting the added ratings based on the value gap metric; and generating the value score for the first property based on the weighted added ratings.
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the value score further comprises: adding, for a first property, the ratings in each of the one or more priorities for the first property; weighting the added ratings based on the value gap metric; and generating the value score for the first property based on the weighted added ratings.
18/496,192 – Claim 4. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising: causing to display at a user interface of a user device, based at least in part on the one or more priorities, a listing of descriptors corresponding to the one or more priorities, wherein the listing of descriptors includes a sub-listing for a known property, the sub-listing including a listing of positive descriptors and a listing of negative descriptors;
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. causing to display at the user interface of the user device, based at least in part on the one or more priorities, a listing of descriptors corresponding to the one or more priorities, wherein the listing of descriptors includes a sub-listing a known property, the sub-listing including a listing of positive descriptors and a listing of negative descriptors,
18/496,192 – Claim 4. receiving, from the user interface of the user device and for the priority data object, an indication of selection of the at least one current descriptor and the at least one ideal descriptor corresponding to one of the one or more priorities and from the displayed listing of descriptors, the at least one current descriptor corresponding to the known property and the at least one ideal descriptor corresponding to an unknown property;
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. receiving, from the user interface of the user device and for the priority data object, an indication of selection of at least one current descriptor and at least one ideal descriptor corresponding to one of the one or more priorities and from the displayed listing of descriptors, the at least one current descriptor corresponding to the known property and the at least one ideal descriptor corresponding to an unknown property,
18/496,192 – Claim 4. receiving, from the user interface of the user device and for the at least one current descriptor corresponding to the known property, at least one impact description selection from a listing of impact descriptions;
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. receiving, from the user interface of the user device in response to generating the prompt and for the at least one current descriptor corresponding to the known property, at least one impact description selection from a listing of impact descriptions,
18/496,192 – Claim 4. displaying, from the user interface of the user device, the listing of impact descriptions associated with the at least one current descriptor based on whether the at least one current descriptor corresponding to the known property is selected from the listing of positive descriptors or the listing of negative descriptors,
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying the listing of impact descriptions associated with the at least one current descriptor based on whether the at least one current descriptor corresponding to the known property is selected from the listing of positive descriptors or the listing of negative descriptors.
18/496,192 – Claim 4. from a user interface of a user device, an indication of receiving, for the at least one ideal descriptor corresponding to the unknown property, at least one benefit description selection from a listing of benefit descriptions; and
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. receiving, from the user interface and for the at least one ideal descriptor corresponding to the unknown property, at least one benefit description selection from a listing of benefit descriptions, and
18/496,192 – Claim 4. receiving a selection of an impact scoring metric for the selection from the listing of impact descriptions and a selection of an ideal scoring metric for the selection from the listing of benefit descriptions.
US Pat. No.: 11,276,090 – Claim 1. receiving, from the user interface, a selection of an impact scoring metric for the selection from the listing of impact descriptions and a selection of an ideal scoring metric for the selection from the listing of benefit descriptions;
The remaining independent claims contain feature similar to that of claim 1 and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims are further rejected for their dependency upon a rejected independent base claim.
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 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are analyzed under the framework set forth in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), as explained in MPEP §§ 2106–2106.07.
Step 1 – Statutory Category (MPEP § 2106.03)
Claim 1 and its dependents recite a “method of data processing,” which is a process and thus falls within a statutory category. Claim 7 and its dependents recite an “apparatus for data processing” comprising a processor and memory, which is a machine and thus falls within a statutory category. Claim 13 and its dependents recite a “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code,” which is a manufacture and thus falls within a statutory category. Step 1 is satisfied for all claims. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Judicial Exception (MPEP §§ 2106.04, 2106.04(a), 2106.04(a)(2))
The claims recite an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part: “receiving, from a user interface of a user device, an indication of one or more priorities in association with a property value; generating a priority data object, wherein generating the priority data object comprises: receiving, from the user interface, an impact description selection, at least one current descriptor, a benefit description selection, and at least one ideal descriptor; applying a first value per impact description selection and a second value per a number of at least one current descriptor received to a first rolling sum for each priority of the one or more priorities, a first weight being applied to the first rolling sum based on an impact scoring metric; applying the first value per benefit description selection and the second value per a number of an at least one ideal descriptor received to a second rolling sum for each priority of the one or more priorities, a second weight being applied to the second rolling sum based on an ideal scoring metric; iterating the generating for each of the one or more priorities; generating a value gap metric based on the first rolling sum for each of the one or more priorities and the second rolling sum for each of the one or more priorities; generating a property value data object including priority data objects corresponding to each of the one or more priorities; causing the user interface to display one or more prompts to collect evaluation data for one or more visited properties based on the property value data object, the evaluation data including ratings for each of the one or more visited properties in each of the one or more priorities; receiving, from the user interface, evaluation data for the one or more visited properties; and generating a value score for each of the one or more visited properties based on the property value data object and the received evaluation data of each of the one or more visited properties.”
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite concepts of collecting user-selected priorities, descriptors, impact/benefit selections, and evaluation ratings regarding property values; performing mathematical calculations (applying values to rolling sums, applying weights based on scoring metrics, generating a value gap metric, and generating value scores); and presenting prompts/results.
This falls within the abstract-idea groupings of:
Mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations and relationships involving rolling sums, weighted values, value-gap metrics, and scores);
Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions regarding property priorities, current vs. ideal descriptors, impacts/benefits, and property scoring); and
Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or business relations and managing personal behavior or interactions related to evaluating and prioritizing real-property attributes or values).
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The claims are analogous to those held abstract in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results of the collection and analysis is an abstract idea) and SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and presentation of results is abstract). Similar real-estate or valuation data-processing concepts have been found abstract.
Independent claims 7 (apparatus) and 13 (non-transitory CRM) recite the same abstract idea through corresponding “instructions executable by the processor” language that causes performance of the identical receiving, generating, applying, iterating, causing-to-display, and generating steps. The dependent claims (2–6, 8–12, 14–18) merely add further details of the same abstract idea (e.g., generating prompts based on positive/negative descriptor listings; adding and weighting ratings; generating value maps and perceived values; displaying descriptor listings and receiving selections of impact/benefit descriptions and scoring metrics; encoding psychographic effects). These remain within the same abstract-idea groupings.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application (MPEP § 2106.04(d))
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites a “user interface of a user device” for receiving indications/selections/evaluation data and for displaying prompts. Claims 7 and 13 additionally recite a “processor,” “memory in electronic communication with the processor,” and “instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor” (or equivalent non-transitory medium storing code). These are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or using generic computer components as tools. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; they do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis; they do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine that is integral to the claim; they do not effect a transformation of a particular article; and they do not apply the abstract idea in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a particular technological environment (generic user devices and computers). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Displaying prompts and receiving data via a user interface is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The focus of the claims remains the abstract idea of data collection, mathematical analysis of property-related priorities and descriptors, and generation of scores/metrics, performed using conventional computer tools. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B – Inventive Concept / Significantly More (MPEP § 2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that, individually or in ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., there is no inventive concept).
The additional elements (user interface/user device, processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and generic instructions executable thereon) are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components used in their ordinary capacity to receive data, perform calculations, store data, and display results. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26; MPEP § 2106.05(d) (citing, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activities).
Even considered as an ordered combination, the claims simply automate the abstract idea on generic computer hardware without any non-conventional arrangement or improvement to computer functionality itself. Dependent-claim limitations (descriptor listings, positive/negative distinctions, value maps, psychographic encoding, etc.) add only further abstract data-processing details or insignificant extrasolution activity and do not supply an inventive concept.
Claims 1–18 are therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s note: This rejection is formulated in accordance with MPEP § 2106.07(a). Applicant is invited to amend the claims to recite specific technological improvements to computer functionality or a particular technical solution rooted in computer technology, supported by the specification, if such features are present.
No Prior-art Rejection
Claims 1-18 cannot be rejected with prior-art. Individual claimed features are taught in the prior-art, however, the unique combination of features and elements are not taught by the prior-art without hindsight reasoning.
The closest prior art (See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited) does not teach the claimed: 18/496,192 – Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A method of data processing, comprising: receiving, from a user interface of a user device, an indication of one or more priorities in association with a property value; generating a priority data object, wherein generating the priority data object comprises: receiving, from the user interface, an impact description selection, at least one current descriptor, a benefit description selection, and at least one ideal descriptor; applying a first value per impact description selection and a second value per a number of at least one current descriptor received to a first rolling sum for each priority of the one or more priorities, a first weight being applied to the first rolling sum based on an impact scoring metric; applying the first value per benefit description selection and the second value per a number of an at least one ideal descriptor received to a second rolling sum for each priority of the one or more priorities, a second weight being applied to the second rolling sum based on an ideal scoring metric; iterating the generating for each of the one or more priorities; generating a value gap metric based on the first rolling sum for each of the one or more priorities and the second rolling sum for each of the one or more priorities; generating a property value data object including priority data objects corresponding to each of the one or more priorities; causing the user interface to display one or more prompts to collect evaluation data for one or more visited properties based on the property value data object, the evaluation data including ratings for each of the one or more visited properties in each of the one or more priorities; receiving, from the user interface, evaluation data for the one or more visited properties; and generating a value score for each of the one or more visited properties based on the property value data object and the received evaluation data of each of the one or more visited properties.
The closest prior-art (Gary, JR. et al. 2017/0061507, Ritter 2016/0292750, Sinnard et al. US 8,010,906, Gholami et al. 2017/0109413) teach some of the claimed features, however, these cited references do not teach and the prior-art does not teach at least the following combination of features and/or elements:
receiving, from a user interface of a user device, an indication of one or more priorities in association with a property value; generating a priority data object, wherein generating the priority data object comprises: receiving, from the user interface, an impact description selection, at least one current descriptor, a benefit description selection, and at least one ideal descriptor; applying a first value per impact description selection and a second value per a number of at least one current descriptor received to a first rolling sum for each priority of the one or more priorities, a first weight being applied to the first rolling sum based on an impact scoring metric; applying the first value per benefit description selection and the second value per a number of an at least one ideal descriptor received to a second rolling sum for each priority of the one or more priorities, a second weight being applied to the second rolling sum based on an ideal scoring metric; iterating the generating for each of the one or more priorities; generating a value gap metric based on the first rolling sum for each of the one or more priorities and the second rolling sum for each of the one or more priorities; generating a property value data object including priority data objects corresponding to each of the one or more priorities; causing the user interface to display one or more prompts to collect evaluation data for one or more visited properties based on the property value data object, the evaluation data including ratings for each of the one or more visited properties in each of the one or more priorities; receiving, from the user interface, evaluation data for the one or more visited properties; and generating a value score for each of the one or more visited properties based on the property value data object and the received evaluation data of each of the one or more visited properties.
Examiner’s Response to Arguments
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping 35 USC 101 rejection including Applicant’s amendments, arguments, lack of abstract idea, and practical integration.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claims 1-18, on page(s) 11-15 of Applicant’s Remarks (dated 10/28/2025), Applicants traverse the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing the following: the claims are not abstract and any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Prong One – The Claims Recite a Judicial Exception
Applicant argues that independent claims 1, 7, and 13 do not recite a judicial exception because they include receiving selections from a user interface where possible descriptors may be determined based on prior selections, and because generation of a priority data object and property value data object is not a mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, or mental process. Applicant further analogizes the claims to Example 37 (Relocation of Icons on a Graphical User Interface), claim 1 (or the discussion of claim 2 in related materials), which the Office has indicated does not recite an abstract idea.
These arguments are not persuasive.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that fall within the abstract-idea groupings of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Specifically, the claims recite:
receiving user indications of priorities and selections of impact descriptions, current descriptors, benefit descriptions, and ideal descriptors;
applying values to rolling sums and applying weights based on scoring metrics;
generating a value gap metric from the rolling sums;
generating priority data objects and a property value data object;
causing display of prompts to collect evaluation ratings based on the property value data object; and
generating value scores for properties based on the data object and received ratings.
These steps, considered individually and as an ordered combination, describe collecting information about property priorities and descriptors, performing mathematical calculations (rolling sums, weighting, value-gap generation, and scoring), evaluating/judging property attributes relative to priorities, and organizing the resulting information for property evaluation and scoring. Such concepts are abstract. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results is an abstract idea); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The recitation of a “user interface of a user device,” “priority data object,” and “property value data object” does not remove the claims from the abstract-idea groupings. Data objects and data structures that merely organize or hold the results of abstract calculations and selections remain abstract when claimed at this level of generality. The claims do not recite a specific technical improvement to how a computer stores, retrieves, or processes data independent of the abstract idea itself (contrast Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Applicant’s reliance on Example 37 is misplaced. In Example 37, the eligible claim recited a specific method of automatically rearranging icons on a GUI based on tracked amount of use, which the Office analyzed as improving the functionality of the user interface itself in a particular technical manner. The present claims, by contrast, use a generic user interface merely as a conduit for receiving abstract selections and displaying prompts that are generated according to the abstract priority/value-gap analysis. The focus of the claims remains the abstract process of prioritizing and scoring properties based on user-selected descriptors and weighted calculations, not a technical improvement to the GUI or computer functionality.
Accordingly, the claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.
Prong Two – The Claims Do Not Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
Applicant argues that, even if a judicial exception is recited, the claims integrate it into a practical application because they provide “a computing resource efficient object for transfer and processing,” avoid utilizing computing resources for irrelevant evaluation data, enable easier system integration, and produce a relatively small data object that represents perceived effects rather than all factual data. Applicant relies on Specification paragraph [0019] and asserts that the claims reflect this disclosed improvement.
These arguments are not persuasive.
MPEP § 2106.04(d) and § 2106.05(a) require that the claim itself reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (here, a more efficient or selective way of performing property prioritization and scoring) is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (“an improvement in the abstract idea itself . . . is not an improvement in technology”).
The benefits described in Specification paragraph [0019]—avoiding collection of irrelevant evaluation data, producing a “relatively small” object, and facilitating transfer/processing—are the natural result of performing the abstract idea itself (selecting only customer-relevant priorities and encoding perceived effects rather than exhaustive factual data). They do not arise from any specific technical improvement to computer functionality, memory management, data-transfer protocols, or another technology. The claims do not recite any particular technical implementation details that achieve these efficiencies beyond the abstract filtering and packaging of priority/value-gap information into a data object. Generic advantages in computational efficiency that flow from applying an abstract idea more selectively do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See, e.g., Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354–55; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167–68.
The additional elements remain: a generic user interface/user device for receiving selections and displaying prompts, and (in claims 7 and 13) a generic processor, memory, and instructions or non-transitory medium. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or to use a computer as a tool. They do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–18 add further details of the same abstract idea (conditional prompts based on positive/negative descriptors, weighting ratings by the value gap metric, generating value maps, encoding psychographic effects, additional UI selection flows, etc.). These limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate that exception into a practical application under Step 2A. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained for claims 1–18. Applicant is invited to amend the claims to recite specific technical improvements to computer functionality or another technology that are supported by the specification and reflected in the claim language, or to present further arguments addressing the points above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 / § 103
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping prior-art rejection including Applicant’s amendments and arguments and unique combination of features and elements not taught by the prior-art without hindsight reasoning.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Patent Literature
The prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gary, JR. et al. 2017/0061507 [0017] g) to provide an impact statement based on a specific item description; [0018] h) to provide an impact statement immediately after entry of the asset description; [0019] i) to provide accurate impact statements based on a bid on an asset; [0023] m) to provide a specific item description using a typed description; [0024] n) to provide a specific item description using a series of hierarchal selections; [0025] o) to provide a specific item description using the input of an identification code associated with a specific asset.
Ritter 2016/0292750 [Abstract] A process for determining a rating for the quality and condition of real property which comprises formulating a quality model and a condition model for the real property, and determining, based on the quality and condition models, a rating for the quality and condition of the real property. A non-transitory computer-readable medium is provided comprising encoded instructions for execution by one or more processors of a computer. The instructions when executed are operable to formulate a quality model and a condition model for the real property, and to determine a rating for the quality and condition of the real property. A system is provided comprising one or more processors and instructions encoded in one or more tangible media for determining a rating for the quality and condition of real property.
Sinnard et al. US 8,010,906 [Abstract] A property presentation and visualization method comprising measuring at least one room comprising a room length and a room width forming at least one measurement line, measuring at least one wall interruption comprising a wall interruption length and a wall interruption width, and measuring at least one outside space. The room measurement, wall interruption measurement, and outside space measurement are input to a processor. Textual information and at least one graphic image concerning the structure are input to the processor. A property overview image of the structure and the at least one outside space is formed using computer instructions, the room measurement, the wall interruption measurement, the measurement lines, the text information, and the graphic images. The property overview image is then output for viewing. Description (59) The textual information can include a features listing of the space. The features listing can include any description of amenities, features, benefits, contents, components, materials, or characteristics of a structure, room, or outside space, in a list or tabular form, that can be categorized by room, area, type of feature, or other categorization. The features listing can be linked to the final property overview image, allowing users to seamlessly view the property overview image and a features listing for all or a portion of the property.
Gholami et al. 2017/0109413 [0051] The normalized CTR module 132 and/or the AS control module 56 may determine gaps between TCTRs and NCTRs by subtracting the NCTRs from the TCTRs or vice versa. The gaps may indicate an amount of skew in the performance of the CTR-based scoring model 116. For example, a large gap (e.g., 90%) may indicate that the CTR-based scoring model 116 performs inconsistently across a group of queries. As described herein, the normalized CTR module 132 and/or the AS control module 56 may update the CTR-based scoring model 116 in response to the gaps determined. For example, the normalized CTR module 132 and/or the AS control module 56 may update the CTR-based scoring model 116 if a gap value is greater than a predetermined threshold.
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Non-Patent Literature (NPL)
The NPL prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HomeSeeker: a visual analytics system of real estate data Mingzhao Li; Zhifeng Bao; Sellis, Timos; Shi Yan; Rui Zhang. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 45: 1-16. Elsevier B.V. (Apr 2018)
realtor.com and Bankrate Introduce Mobile Mortgage Application Wireless News: NA. Close-Up Media, Inc. (Jun 27, 2014)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T. SITTNER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7137 and email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm (Mountain Time Zone).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M. Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833.
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://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW T SITTNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629b
Prosecution Insights