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 the Claims
Claims 1-21 are currently pending. Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, and 21 were amended in the reply filed December 15, 2025. No claims were added or cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Objections:
Applicant's amendments overcome the objection made to claim 1-21 and it is withdrawn.
112(b):
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) to claims 6 and 16 and it is withdrawn.
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, that the claims “are directed to a particular improvement in computerized processing of disparate real-estate and home-builder data sources to generate actionable performance insights” and the recited steps are “inherently computer-specific” (Remarks p. 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. An improvement in processing real-estate and home builder data to generate actionable performance insights is an improvement in the abstract idea itself, not any computer functionality or other technology. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). With respect to the argument that the claims are “inherently computer-specific”, Examiner notes that the claims recite generic computer components at a high-level of detail, performing generic computer functions (e.g., sending and receiving data, performing calculations and comparisons). As such, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant further argues that the claims recite an inventive concept. Specifically, that the claims recite “a non-conventional implementation of computerized tools to perform a non-conventional evaluation of various sources of data across multiple parameters to provide an automated performance analysis” similar to the claims in Bascom (Remarks p. 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the claims recite generic computer components at a high-level of detail, performing generic computer functions. It is not clear what is “non-conventional” about the tools or processes in applicant’s claims. Furthermore, unlike Bascom, Applicant’s claims do not recite an improvement to a technological process. Instead, they only improve on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Applicant’s claim amendments are taught by the existing references as described below.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Guillo “merely describes different forms of housing units” and does not describe “a set of homes or multiple sets of multiple homes associated with different entities” as recited by claim 1 (Remarks p. 15), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “set of homes” can refer to many different types of structures used for habitation. As such, it can include an apartment or townhouse, which are multi-home buildings. Similarly, the various types of housing projects described by Guillo include “a set of related properties”, which can include a set of single houses (i.e., homes).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Ma teaches “a single home plus recently sold homes—not a set of homes associated with an entity” (Remarks p. 15), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Guillo is cited below as teaching “the first set of homes associated with a particular entity and the second set of homes associated with one or more other entities” in combination with Ma and that Guillo does teach a set of homes as described above. Furthermore, Guillo teaches “properties constructed by a single builder”, which is a “set of homes associated with a particular entity” under the broadest reasonable interpretation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Ma does not teach, “a user input that indicates a selected one or more homes with respect to the first set of homes” and Guillo does not remedy because it “does not disclose sets of homes associated with entities or any selection of homes by user input” (Remarks p. 16), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Ma discloses a user input that indicated a selected one or more homes, particularly “the user may select link 1011 from the display of detailed information about a particular home” in [0080] is a user input indicating a selection of a home.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Guillo does not describe “a subset of the second set of homes, generating instructions based on such a subset, or transmitting instructions to a second node of a network” (Remarks p. 16), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “similar past projects” used for “comparing features” (see Guillo [0031-0033]) is the subset of the second set of homes (similar to the comps in Ma). Furthermore, the “recommending the price that a new property should be sold at” disclosed by Guillo is an “instruction”.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 recite, receiving home data corresponding to a first set of homes and a second set of homes, the first set of homes associated with a particular entity and the second set of homes associated with one or more other entities;
the home data comprising, for each home of the first set of homes and the second set of homes, a respective plurality of parameter values, where the plurality of parameter values includes a location of a corresponding home, a price range of the corresponding home, dimensions of a home plan of the corresponding home, and a layout of the home plan of the corresponding home; receiving, at the first node of the network, a user input that indicates a selected one or more homes of the first set of homes;
performing a multi-tiered comparison between a portion of the home data that corresponds to the one or more selected homes and a portion of the home data that corresponds to the second set of homes to generate comparison results;
selecting a subset of the second set of homes based on the comparison results;
transmitting one or more instructions based on the subset of the second set of homes;
and outputting a representation of the selected one or more homes, a representation of the subset of the second set of homes, and a representation of differences between the selected one or more homes and the subset of the second set of home.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, comparing home sales data is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities. Examiner particularly notes paragraphs [0005-0006] of Applicant’s specification which describe the systems and methods as being used “to pace performance more effectively, more accurately compare homes, and predict trends in the housing market”, which clarifies the relationship to sales and business.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to receive home data, select a particular home for comparison, generate multi-tiered comparison results, and output home differences can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 21 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a memory (claim 1), a processor (claim 1), a first node and a second node of a network (claims 1, 11, and 21), a graphical user interface (claims 1, 11, and 21), and a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 21). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, and 20, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 21. The additional elements in claims 8 and 18 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 8 and 18, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 8 and 18 also recite the additional elements of a data source and a separate data source. Each of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner notes that, per paragraph [0048] of Applicant’s specification, a “data source” is interpreted as including a “computing device” that is connected to the network.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 8 and 18, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a data source and a separate data source, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 8 and 18 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0185727 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0005348 to Guillo et al. (Guillo).
As to claims 1, 11, and 21, Ma teaches:
(claim 1) a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to perform the steps of (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing some of the components typically incorporated in at least some of the computer systems and other devices on which the facility executes. These computer systems and devices 100 may include one or more central processing units ("CPUs") 101 for executing computer programs; a computer memory 102 for storing programs and data …” [0044]):
(claim 21) a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code for performing steps comprising (“… a computer-readable media drive 104, such as a CD-ROM drive, for reading programs and data stored on a computer-readable medium …” [0044]):
receiving, at a first node of a network, home data corresponding to a first [home] (“In some embodiments, the facility constructs and/or applies housing price models each constituting a forest of classification trees. In some such embodiments, the facility uses a data table that identifies, for each of a number of homes recently sold in the geographic region to which the forest corresponds, attributes of the home and its selling price …” and “In most cases, it is possible to determine the attributes of a home to be valued. For example, they can often be obtained from existing tax or sales records maintained by local governments. Alternatively, a home's attributes may be inputted by a person familiar with them, such as the owner, a listing agent, or a person that derives the information from the owner or listing agent …” [0038 and 0041] Examiner notes that “a home to be valued” is the first home and the “number of homes recently sold”, is the second set of homes);
the home data comprising, for each home of the first [home] (“” []),
where the plurality of parameter values includes a location of a corresponding home, (“… Each row is divided into the following columns: … an address column 322 containing the address of the sold home; a square foot column 323 containing the floor area of the home; a bedrooms column 324 containing the number of bedrooms in the home; a bathrooms column 325 containing the number of bathrooms in the home; a floors column 326 containing the number of floors in the home; …” [0046]);
receiving, at the first node of the network, a user input that indicates a selected one or more homes (“The facility typically initiates the tailoring of a valuation for a subject home to input from the subject home's user in response to expression of interest by the user in performing such tailoring …” [0080-0082] Examiner notes that the “subject home” taught by Ma is a selected home);
performing a multi-tiered comparison between a portion of the home data that corresponds to the one or more selected homes and a portion of the home data that corresponds to the second set of homes to generate comparison results (“… In order to apply the completed tree 700 shown in FIG. 7 to obtain its valuation for a particular home, the facility retrieves that home's attributes …” and “… In step 1401, the facility displays an initial valuation of the subject home. In step 1402, the facility solicits updated home attributes from the user …” [0068-0072 and 0082-0084]);
selecting a subset of the second set of homes based on the comparison results (“… The user can traverse link 1833 in the pop-up balloon or link 1834 in the table in order to add the first possible comp to a "My Comps" list 1835. The user populates the My Comps list in this manner, until it contains what he or she regards as up to ten comps most similar to the subject home …” [0091-0093] Examiner notes that “My Comps”, as taught by Ma, is a subset of the second set of homes);
and outputting, at the second node of the network, a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes a representation of the selected one or more homes, a representation of the subset of the second set of homes, and a representation of differences between the selected one or more homes and the subset of the second set of homes (“FIG. 18 is a display diagram showing a sample display presented by the facility in order to enable the user to identify comps regarded by the user as similar to the subject home …” and “FIGS. 19A-19F show a sample display typically presented by the facility in order to present an overall revised value for the subject home. FIG. 19A shows the entire display 1900, while FIGS. 19B-19F show portions of the display at a greater level of magnification …” [0091 and 0094] Examiner notes that Figs. 18, 19A, and 19F show a list of parameters for all of the comps, which is “a representation of differences”).
Ma does not teach, the first set of homes associated with a particular entity and the second set of homes associated with one or more other entities; where the plurality of parameter values includes a price range of the corresponding home; transmitting, to a second node of the network, one or more instructions based on the subset of the second set of homes.
However, Guillo teaches, the first set of homes associated with a particular entity and the second set of homes associated with one or more other entities (“As used herein, a “property” is a single house, apartment, townhouse, condominium, villa, or other residential unit, while “project”, “housing project”, “residential housing project”, “construction project”, or “residential construction project” refer to a set of related properties constructed by a single builder …” [0030-0034] Examiner notes that a “builder” is an entity);
where the plurality of parameter values includes a price range of the corresponding home (“… At the top left of the screen, input fields are provided for a user to enter CMA Filters 318 for a subject project such as a price range, which can be a range that a builder intends to sell, unit size range, typical lot size, and the location of the subject project as geographic coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude) …” [0037-0039]);
transmitting, to a second node of the network, one or more instructions based on the subset of the second set of homes (“… Therefore, with the simple act of inputting the details for a new property, a price recommendation and contributions of various features are outputted …” [0033-0034] Examiner notes that, per paragraph [0018] of Applicant’s specification, “instruction” is interpreted to mean an instruction to a home builder regarding pace, home pricing, advertising, or similar).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, the first set of homes associated with a particular entity and the second set of homes associated with one or more other entities; where the plurality of parameter values includes a price range of the corresponding home; transmitting, to a second node of the network, one or more instructions based on the subset of the second set of homes, as taught by Guillo with the home comparison system and method of Ma. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Guillo that doing so would establish a snapshot of the housing market supply and pricing in an area [0004].
While Ma teaches a first home, Ma does not teach a first set of homes. However, Guillo teaches, a first set of homes (“… The method includes creation of a set of housing projects (called Set, or in short, CMA Set) that are similar to an inputted subject housing project (i.e., new project). The set of housing projects includes pricing information. The inputted subject housing project can include multiple units including houses, apartments, townhouses, condominiums, or villas …” [0030-0032]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the first home of Ma for the first set of homes of Guillo. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Guillo that doing so would establish a snapshot of the housing market supply and pricing in an area [0004].
As to claims 2 and 12, Ma in view of Guillo teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Ma further teaches, where the multi-tiered comparison comprises a first tier that compares a distance between the locations of the one or more selected homes and the subset of the second set of homes to a first threshold (“... In some embodiments, the facility also increases to a lesser extent the weighting in a copy of the recent sales table of the sales of homes that are near the subject home, such as having the same zip code, having the same neighborhood name, or having a calculated distance from the subject home that is below a particular distance threshold …” [0092]).
As to claims 3 and 13, Ma in view of Guillo teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as discussed above. Ma further teaches, where the first tier further includes a comparison of a geographic region between the homes (“FIG. 2 is a flow diagram showing steps typically performed by the facility to automatically determine current values for homes in a geographic area. The facility may perform these steps for one or more geographic areas of one or more different granularities, including neighborhood, city, county, state, country, etc. …” and “… In some embodiments, the facility constructs and applies compound valuation models to one or more geographic areas …” [0045-0046 and 0077-0079]).
As to claims 4 and 14, Ma in view of Guillo teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as discussed above. Ma does not teach, where the first threshold is 20 miles. However, Guillo teaches, where the first threshold is 20 miles (“… At the top center of the graphical user interface 300 displayed on the screen, the user can toggle CMA thresholds 320 for price, unit size, and typical lot size, as 0 to 100% of the inputted values, while a radius of nearby projects from the inputted geographic location can be toggled as a distance from the inputted geographic area in miles …” [0037] Examiner notes Guillo teaches a threshold of any number of miles, which necessarily includes 20 miles. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, the first set of homes associated with a particular entity and the second set of homes associated with one or more other entities; where the plurality of parameter values includes a price range of the corresponding home; transmitting, to a second node of the network, one or more instructions based on the subset of the second set of homes, as taught by Guillo with the home comparison system and method of Ma. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Guillo that doing so would establish a snapshot of the housing market supply and pricing in an area [0004].
As to claims 5 and 15, Ma in view of Guillo teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Ma does not teach, where the multi-tiered comparison comprises a second tier that compares a difference between the dimensions of the home plans of the one or more selected homes and the dimensions of the home plans of the subset of the second set of homes to a second threshold, where the second threshold is a 20% difference between the dimensions of the home plans of the one or more selected homes and the dimensions of the home plans of the subset of the second set of homes. However, Guillo teaches, where the multi-tiered comparison comprises a second tier that compares a difference between the dimensions of the home plans of the one or more selected homes and the dimensions of the home plans of the subset of the second set of homes to a second threshold, where the second threshold is a 20% difference between the dimensions of the home plans of the one or more selected homes and the dimensions of the home plans of the subset of the second set of homes (“… At the top center of the graphical user interface 300 displayed on the screen, the user can toggle CMA thresholds 320 for price, unit size, and typical lot size, as 0 to 100% of the inputted values …” [0037-0038] Examiner notes Guillo teaches a threshold of 0 to 100% of the inputted values, which necessarily includes 20%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where the multi-tiered comparison comprises a second tier that compares a difference between the dimensions of the home plans of the one or more selected homes and the dimensions of the home plans of the subset of the second set of homes to a second threshold, where the second threshold is a 20% difference between the dimensions of the home plans of the one or more selected homes and the dimensions of the home plans of the subset of the second set of homes, as taught by Guillo with the home comparison system and method of Ma. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Guillo that doing so would establish a snapshot of the housing market supply and pricing in an area [0004].
As to claims 6 and 16, Ma in view of Guillo teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Ma further teaches, where the multi-tiered comparison comprises a third tier that compares a difference between the layouts of the home plans of the one or more selected homes and the layouts of the home plans of the subset of the second set of homes to a third threshold, where the third threshold is whether a number of bedrooms or bathrooms of the subset of the second set of homes are within one bedroom from a number of bedrooms of the one or more selected homes or within one bathroom from a number of bathrooms of the one or more selected homes (“… Node 702 represents sales whose bedrooms attribute is less than or equal to 4, that is, between 1 and 4, as well as the full range of view attribute values represented by node 601. Accordingly, node 702 represents sales 8 and 11. Because this number of sales is below the threshold of 4, node 702 qualifies as a leaf node, and its valuation of $152,450 is calculated by determining the mean selling price of sales 8 and 11 …” [0068-0074]).
As to claims 7 and 17, Ma in view of Guillo teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Ma does not teach, where the multi-tiered comparison comprises a fourth tier that compares a difference between a price range of the one or more selected homes and the price range of the subset of the second set of homes to a fourth threshold, where the fourth threshold is a 20% difference between the price range of the one or more selected homes and the price range of the subset of the second set of homes. However, Guillo teaches, where the multi-tiered comparison comprises a fourth tier that compares a difference between a price range of the one or more selected homes and the price range of the subset of the second set of homes to a fourth threshold, where the fourth threshold is a 20% difference between the price range of the one or more selected homes and the price range of the subset of the second set of homes (“… At the top left of the screen, input fields are provided for a user to enter CMA Filters 318 for a subject project such as a price range, which can be a range that a builder intends to sell, unit size range, typical lot size, and the location of the subject project as geographic coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude) …” [0037-0038] Examiner notes Guillo teaches a threshold of 0 to 100% of the inputted values, which necessarily includes 20%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where the multi-tiered comparison comprises a fourth tier that compares a difference between a price range of the one or more selected homes and the price range of the subset of the second set of homes to a fourth threshold, where the fourth threshold is a 20% difference between the price range of the one or more selected homes and the price range of the subset of the second set of homes, as taught by Guillo with the home comparison system and method of Ma. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Guillo that doing so would establish a snapshot of the housing market supply and pricing in an area [0004].
As to claims 8 and 18, Ma in view of Guillo teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Ma further teaches, receiving a portion of the home data associated with the second set of homes from a separate data source from the data source associated with the particular entity (“In some such embodiments, the facility uses a data table that identifies, for each of a number of homes recently sold in the geographic region to which the forest corresponds, attributes of the home and its selling price …” [0038-0039]).
Ma does not teach, receiving a portion of the home data associated with the first set of homes from a data source associated with the particular entity. However, Guillo teaches, receiving a portion of the home data associated with the first set of homes from a data source associated with the particular entity (“… Therefore, with the simple act of inputting the details for a new property, a price recommendation and contributions of various features are outputted” and “… The remote computer(s) can receive geographic area or other data related to a new housing project or property inputted by the user through the user interface (either provided as the application on the user's computer or device, or accessed through the web server) and can have a memory capable of housing storages of the inputted information on a subject project or subject property …” [0030-0033 and 0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, receiving a portion of the home data associated with the first set of homes from a data source associated with the particular entity, as taught by Guillo with the home comparison system and method of Ma. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Guillo that doing so would establish a snapshot of the housing market supply and pricing in an area [0004].
As to claims 9 and 19, Ma in view of Guillo teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Ma further teaches, where the GUI is configured to display the representation of the selected one or more homes and the representation of the subset of the second set of homes on a map (“FIG. 13 is a display diagram showing a display typically presented by the facility to identify possible comparable sales on a map …” and “… The display includes a map 1830 on which possible comps are displayed as numbers appearing in circles. For example, a possible comp 1831 appears as a circle with the number one in it. When the user hovers over and/or clicks on one of these possible comps, the facility displays a pop-up balloon including information about the possible comp …” [0081 and 0091]).
As to claims 10 and 20, Ma in view of Guillo teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Ma further teaches, where the layout of the home further includes a number of bedrooms, a number of bathrooms, a number of floors in the respective home, a plan area, or a combination thereof (“… Each row is divided into the following columns: an identifier column 321 containing an identifier for the sale; an address column 322 containing the address of the sold home; a square foot column 323 containing the floor area of the home; a bedrooms column 324 containing the number of bedrooms in the home; a bathrooms column 325 containing the number of bathrooms in the home; a floors column 326 containing the number of floors in the home …” [0046]);
and where the plurality of parameter values further includes a school district associated with the respective home, a school district rating associated with the respective home, a presence of a garage at the respective home, a community amenity associated with the respective home, a completion status of the respective home, a community classification associated with the respective home, or a combination thereof (“… Attributes that may be used include, for example, construction materials, cooling technology, structure type, fireplace type, parking structure, driveway, heating technology, swimming pool type, roofing material, occupancy type, home design type, view type, view quality, lot size and dimensions, number of rooms, number of stories, school district, longitude and latitude, neighborhood or subdivision, tax assessment, attic and other storage, etc. …” [0046]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628