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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 1, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated February 23, 2026. In the RCE, submitted on June 1, 2026, claims 1, 11, and 21 were amended and claims 8 and 18 were cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-21 are currently pending and subject to the below non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
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 recite a technical solution to the technical problem of “how to automatically and accurately process large, heterogeneous data streams from multiple disparate sources to produce actionable competitive insights for high-volume production home builders” (Remarks p. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “processing of large, heterogenous data streams from multiple disparate sources” is described at a high level of detail and performed on a generic computer system. As such, the claims are merely automating the abstract idea. Mere automation of a manual process is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(i)).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not support Applicant’s argument that the claims recite a technical solution. “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification” (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Applicant’s specification describes the invention as improving or optimizing home production and performance (see e.g., paragraphs [0002, 0025]), which is an improvement to the judicial exception and not to the functioning of a computer, or technology or technological processes. There are no sections of Applicant’s specification that provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to technology.
Applicant next argues that the claims recite steps that are “inherently computer-specific and cannot practically be performed mentally or with pen and paper” (Remarks p. 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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)). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) – “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”. Examiner also notes that the claims recite an abstract idea as “certain methods of organizing human activity”, which is a separate grouping from mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Lastly, Applicant argues that the claims recite an inventive concept similar to Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Bascom”). Specifically, that “the present claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of computer components that improves an existing technological process” and the “specific arrangement of components receiving data from separate entity and third-party sources, applying a multi-tiered comparison, and automatically transmitting instructions is not a generic computer implementation of an abstract idea” (Remarks p. 11-12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arrangement of components, as claimed, appears to be a generic arrangement of networked computing devices. Examiner notes Fig. 1 of Applicant’s specification, which shows a high-level, diagram of networked computing devices as an example of a system that implements the claimed invention. Using a generic arrangement of networked computing devices to analyze data or perform steps specific to the abstract idea does not transform the generic computer components into a “specific arrangement of components”. Examiner also notes that, as described above, the claimed invention does not improve an existing technological process. Thus, the claims are not similar to Bascom.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 1-7, 9-17, and 19-21 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;
wherein a first portion of the home data associated with the first set of homes is received from the particular entity and a second portion of the home data associated with the second set of homes is received from the particular entity;
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 to the particular entity 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 and outputting instructions 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 data source (claims 1, 11, and 21), a separate data source from the data source (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 adding any additional elements for analysis. Thus, claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, and 20 are also ineligible for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 21.
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 1-3, 6, 9-13, 16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0346151 to Bleakley et al. (Bleakley) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0185727 to Ma et al. (Ma).
As to claim 1, Bleakley teaches, a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to perform the steps of (“The hardware and data processing apparatus used to implement the various illustrative logic, logical blocks, modules, and algorithms described in connection with the aspects disclosed herein may be implemented or performed with a general purpose single-chip or multi-chip processor … Storage media may be any available media that may be accessed by a computer. By way of example, and not limitation, such computer-readable media may include RAM, ROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, flash memory, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that may be used to store desired program code in the form of instructions or data structures and that may be accessed by a computer …” [0062-0064]):
receiving, at a first node of a network, 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 (“… Some of the data stores can be local to the valuation system 104 (e.g., the data store 108a) and other data stores may be remotely connected to the system 104 through a network 116 (e.g., the data store 108b) …” and “The categorization module 124 can be used to receive information about [i.e., home data corresponding to] and categorize the types of properties that are to be constructed according to a development plan for the real estate development [i.e., a first set of homes]. These properties will be referred to as "virtual properties," because the "virtual" characteristics (e.g., type of property, square footage, number bedrooms, etc.) of each of the virtual properties can be used by the valuation analyzer 128 to determine a valuation for the development …” and “… In the system 100, the AVMs 132a-132c, the categorization module 124, and/or the valuation analyzer 128 can access the property valuation data [i.e., home data corresponding to a second set of homes] from the data stores 108a, 108b …” [0021-0022 and 0025-0026 and 0032-0037]),
wherein a first portion of the home data associated with the first set of homes is received from a data source associated with the particular entity (“… For example, the categorization module 124 can receive or access the virtual property characteristics from the from the data stores 108a, 108b or from users [i.e., the particular entity] via the computing devices 112 …” [0026-0027])
and a second portion of the home data associated with the second set of homes is received from a separate data source from the data source associated with the particular entity (“… For example, the valuation system 104 may access property valuation data from third-party data providers [i.e., a separate data source] via the network 116 …” and “… The valuation system 104 can use proprietary AVMs and/or third party AVMs (e.g., AVM3 132c could be an operated by a third-party unaffiliated with the system 100) …” [0021 and 0032-0033]);
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 (“The categorization module 124 can be used to receive information about and categorize the types of properties that are to be constructed according to a development plan for the real estate development. These properties will be referred to as "virtual properties," because the "virtual" characteristics (e.g., type of property, square footage [i.e., dimensions of a home plan], number bedrooms, etc.) of each of the virtual properties can be used by the valuation analyzer 128 to determine a valuation for the development … In one example implementation, the virtual property characteristics for virtual properties in a development include geographic information [i.e., a location] such as zip code or address. The geographic information for a property can be useful in determining neighborhood boundaries and which properties may have an influence on the valuation. The property location can also be determined by geospatial coordinates (e.g., geocodes) or the latitude and longitude of the property. The virtual property characteristics can also include a physical description [i.e., a layout] of the property. For example, the physical description can include lot size (e.g., entered as width and length or dwelling per acre), gross living area (GLA), bedroom count, bathroom count, number of floors, stories, or levels, garage description (e.g., garage space, whether one-car or multiple-car), whether the property has a heater or air conditioner, whether the property has any property-specific amenities such as its own pool or spa, and so forth …” and “… Although a single AVM can be used, in some implementations multiple AVMs are used to provide better estimates (or ranges of estimates [i.e., a price range]) for the virtual properties. For example, multiple AVM valuations can be received for a property, and the valuation used by the valuation analyzer 128 can be an average of the multiple AVM valuations …” [0025-0029 and 0032-0037]);
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 (“One or more computing devices 112 can communicate with the valuation system 100 over the network 116. A user of the system 100 can use one of the computing devices 112 to request or access valuation information from the system 100 [i.e., a user input] …” and “The virtual property categorization module 124 can receive or access virtual property [i.e., a selected one or more homes] characteristics of the individual properties described in the development plan for the development and/or through geospatial information (e.g., longitude and latitude) from geographic information systems (GIS). For example, the categorization module 124 can receive or access the virtual property characteristics from the from the data stores 108a, 108b or from users via the computing devices 112 …” [0022 and 0026]);
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 (“… Generally, an AVM is a computerized system that can provide a valuation for a property (e.g., an estimate of a fair market value for the property) based on a mathematical model that takes into account, for example, characteristics, prices (e.g., comparable sales or "comps"), and price trends of the property and the surrounding area or neighborhood …” and “” and “” [0032-0040 and 00 and 00] Examiner notes that, in light of paragraphs [0157-0160] of Applicant’s specification, a “multi-tiered comparison” is interpreted to mean comparing multiple characteristics of a home);
transmitting, to a second node of the network, one or more instructions to the particular entity based on the subset of the second set of homes (“As discussed further below, some implementations of the system 100 can forecast market demand for properties in the development to provide a projected sales timeline and valuations for the development [i.e., one or more instructions] …” and “… The forecasting module 130 can estimate price changes for the properties over time (columns 320a, 320b, and 320c) to determine price points for future sales …” and “… The forecasting module 130 can estimate price changes for the properties over time (columns 320a, 320b, and 320c) to determine price points for future sales …” [0037-0040 and 0046-0048 and 0054-0058] Examiner notes that, in light of paragraph [0018] of Applicant’s specification, “instruction” is interpreted to mean an instruction to a home builder regarding pace, home pricing, advertising, or similar. Examiner further notes that an estimated price is a home pricing instruction because it tells the user how to price a home);
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, (“… The reporting module 136 can communicate the report (or valuations within the report) via text message. The system 100 can provide a graphical user interface (GUI) by which a user can access the system 100 (e.g., via a web browser or an application (e.g., app or widget) on a computing device 112) in order to input data or user requirements for the valuation and to receive or access the valuation report …” and “FIG. 3 shows an example of a market demand and sales timeline report 300 for a real estate development. The report 300 can be provided by the reporting module 136 …” [0041-0044 and 0048]).
Bleakley does not teach, selecting a subset of the second set of homes based on the comparison results; and outputting, at the second node of the network, a representation of differences between the selected one or more homes and the subset of the second set of homes. However, Ma teaches, 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 [i.e., a subset of the second set of homes]. 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]);
and outputting, at the second node of the network, 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”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, selecting a subset of the second set of homes based on the comparison results; and outputting, at the second node of the network, a representation of differences between the selected one or more homes and the subset of the second set of homes, as taught by Ma with the home comparison system and method of Bleakley. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ma that doing so would have a high level of accuracy, and be inexpensive and convenient [0007].
Regarding claim 11, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a method instead of a system. Because Bleakley teaches a method as well as a system (see at least Bleakley [0005]), claim 11 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Bleakley and Ma to render the claim obvious. Similar dependent claims below will be treated together for the sake of brevity.
Regarding claim 21, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a computer program product instead of a system. Because Bleakley teaches a computer program product as well as a system (see at least Bleakley [0064]), claim 11 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Bleakley and Ma to render the claim obvious. Similar dependent claims below will be treated together for the sake of brevity.
As to claims 2 and 12, Bleakley in view of Ma teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Bleakley does not teach, 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. However, Ma 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]).
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 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, as taught by Ma with the home comparison system and method of Bleakley. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ma that doing so would have a high level of accuracy, and be inexpensive and convenient [0007].
As to claims 3 and 13, Bleakley in view of Ma teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as discussed above. Bleakley further teaches, where the first tier further includes a comparison of a geographic region between the homes (“… In one example implementation, the virtual property characteristics for virtual properties in a development include geographic information such as zip code or address. The geographic information for a property can be useful in determining neighborhood boundaries and which properties may have an influence on the valuation …” and “… In some implementations, for each virtual property, the valuation analyzer 128 (or an individual AVM) can determine the location of the virtual property by using geographic data (e.g., zip code) and access property valuation data for that geographic area …” [0026-0029 and 0035-0036]).
As to claims 6 and 16, Bleakley in view of Ma teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Bleakley does not teach, 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. However, Ma 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]).
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 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, as taught by Ma with the home comparison system and method of Bleakley. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ma that doing so would have a high level of accuracy, and be inexpensive and convenient [0007].
As to claims 9 and 19, Bleakley in view of Ma teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Bleakley does not teach, 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. However, Ma 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]).
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 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, as taught by Ma with the home comparison system and method of Bleakley. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ma that doing so would have a high level of accuracy, and be inexpensive and convenient [0007].
As to claims 10 and 20, Bleakley in view of Ma teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Bleakley does not teach, 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; 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. However, Ma 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]).
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 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; 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, as taught by Ma with the home comparison system and method of Bleakley. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ma that doing so would have a high level of accuracy, and be inexpensive and convenient [0007].
Claims 4, 5, 7, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0346151 to Bleakley et al. (Bleakley) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0185727 to Ma et al. (Ma), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0005348 to Guillo et al. (Guillo).
As to claims 4 and 14, Bleakley in view of Ma teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as discussed above. Bleakley in view of 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 Bleakley in view 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, Bleakley in view of Ma teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Bleakley in view of 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 Bleakley in view 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 7 and 17, Bleakley in view of Ma teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Bleakley in view of 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 Bleakley in view 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].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0010005 to Rowland (Rowland), teaches a system of managing building construction including a set of modules including a land module, a money module, a product module, a worker module, a buyer module, and an integration module configured to integrate information and services from the set of modules.
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
Prosecution Insights