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 amended.
Claims X are new.
Claims X are pending and have been examined.
This action is in reply to the papers filed on XXX (effective filing date xxx).
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined.
This action is in reply to the papers filed on 10/27/2023 (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 xxx.
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Double Patenting - Withdrawn
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn per the filed terminal disclaimer noted above.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Prior-Art Rejection withdrawn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
Regarding Claim 16, there appears to be an extraneous colon at the end of the claim. Please amend accordingly.
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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims recite a method, system, and computer readable medium for value map generation and processing.
Claim 1 recites [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: 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; 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 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 claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-6 recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of a process. Claims 7-12 recite a system/apparatus and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine. Claims 13-18 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium/computer product and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of a manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The following tables identify the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea. The column that identifies the additional elements will be relevant to the analysis in step 2A, prong two, and step 2B.
Claim 1: Identification of Abstract Idea and Additional Elements, using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
Claim Limitation
Abstract Idea
Additional Element
1. A method of data processing, comprising:
No additional elements are positively claimed.
receiving, from a user interface of a user device, an indication of one or more priorities in association with a property value;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: receiving, from a user interface of a user device, an indication of one or more priorities in association with a property value.
But for the user interface, this limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information in order to facilitate value map generation and processing which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
receiving, from a user interface of a user device, an indication of one or more priorities…
generating a priority data object, wherein generating the priority data object comprises: 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;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: generating a priority data object, wherein generating the priority data object comprises: 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.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information in order to facilitate value map generation and processing which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
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;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: 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.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information in order to facilitate value map generation and processing which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
iterating the generating for each of the one or more priorities;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: iterating the generating for each of the one or more priorities.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information in order to facilitate value map generation and processing which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
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;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: 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.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information in order to facilitate value map generation and processing which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
generating a property value data object including priority data objects corresponding to each of the one or more priorities;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: generating a property value data object including priority data objects corresponding to each of the one or more priorities.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information in order to facilitate value map generation and processing which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
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
This limitation includes the step(s) of: 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.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information in order to facilitate value map generation and processing which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
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.
This limitation includes the step(s) of: 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.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information in order to facilitate value map generation and processing which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
As shown above, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of value map generation and processing, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a mental process and/or a method of organizing human activity. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: a “user interface” for receiving information. Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional technical elements including: a “user interface” to execute the method, a “non-transitory machine-readable storage device” for storing executable instructions, an “processor and memory” for implementing the apparatus/system claim. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Examiner further notes that the “offer intelligence tool” is nothing more than a software application being executed on a generic retailer computer. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating, receiving, processing, analyzing, and outputting/displaying data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, the 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, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate, receive, send, process, analyze, output, or display data.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Capturing an image (code) with an RFID reader. Ritter, US Patent No. 7734507 (Col. 3, Lines 56-67); “RFID: Riding on the Chip” by Pat Russo. Frozen Food Age. New York: Dec. 2003, vol. 52, Issue 5; page S22.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Storing and retrieving information in memory. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Using a machine learning model to determine user segment characteristics for an ad campaign. https://whites.agency/blog/how-to-use-machine-learning-for-customer-segmentation/.
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Independent system/apparatus claim 7 and CRM claim 13 also contains the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of a processor and storage medium, which are a generic computer components, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Invention Could be Performed Manually
It is conceivable that the invention could be performed manually without the aid of machine and/or computer. For example, Applicant claims receiving a priority, generating an object, applying a value, etc… Each of these features could be performed manually and/or with the aid of a simple generic computer to facilitate the transmission of data.
See also Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., and In re Venner, which stand for the concept that automating manual activity and/or applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices to accomplish the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Here, applicant is merely claiming computers to facilitate and/or automate functions which used to be commonly performed by a human.
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) "[a]pplying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years…"). The combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.
In In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04, III Automating a Manual Activity.
MPEP 2144.04 III - Automating a Manual Activity and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) further stand for and provide motivation for using technology, hardware, computer, or server to automate a manual activity.
Therefore, the Office finds no improvements to another technology or field, no improvements to the function of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no limitations in any of the claims that transform the exception (i.e., the abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Claim Rejections - Not an Ordered Combination
None of the limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - Preemption
Allowing the claims, as presently claimed, would preempt others from value map generation and processing. Furthermore, the claim language only recites the abstract idea of performing this method, there are no concrete steps articulating a particular way in which this idea is being implemented or describing how it is being performed.
No Prior-art Rejection / Potentially Allowable
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.
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.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
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.
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.”
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)
New app offers help to buyers: Checklist assists potential purchasers to tick all the boxes when inspecting a property and avoid 'nasty surprises' Daily Examiner: 13. Grafton, N.S.W.: News Limited. (Aug 14, 2012)
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