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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 12/23/2025.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claims 1-21 were examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to MPEP 2106 II, It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. Further, MPEP 2103 I C establishes that the subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. Regarding the independent claims, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “the home status data comprising at least a completion status for each home of the plurality of homes and a target metric for the first plurality of homes”; “the performance data indicating one or more historic performance values in the second plurality of homes”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05. In addition, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “where the pace is determined to prevent a change in the number of homes to be sold during any two consecutive increments of the plurality of increments from exceeding a first threshold”; “wherein the set of instructions instruct a home builder to undertake indicate one or more actions to achieve associated with the pace, the one or more actions comprising adjusting a price adjustment for a home in the first plurality of homes, adjusting an advertising effort adjustment, modifying a performance metric modification, or a combination thereof...” , statements of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II.
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a system, claims 8-15 are directed to a method, and claims 16-21 are directed to a product. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Specifically, the language of the claims that recite an abstract idea are marked in bold below:
a. “receiving, at a first node of a network, home status data for a first plurality of homes, the home status data comprising at least a completion status for each home of the plurality of homes and a target metric for the first plurality of homes”;b. “receiving, at the first node of the network, performance data for a second plurality of homes, the performance data indicating one or more historic performance values in the second plurality of homes”;c. “determining a pace for selling the first plurality of homes during a time period by comparing the home status data with the performance data, where the pace includes, for a plurality of increments of the time period, a number of homes of the set of homes to be sold during a respective increment, and where the pace is determined to prevent a change in the number of homes to be sold during any two consecutive increments of the plurality of increments from exceeding a first threshold”;d. “transmitting a set of instructions to a second node of the network, the set of instructions based on the pace; wherein the set of instructions instruct a home builder to undertake indicate one or more actions to achieve associated with the pace, the one or more actions comprising adjusting a price adjustment for a home in the first plurality of homes, adjusting an advertising effort adjustment, modifying a performance metric modification, or a combination thereof”;e. “outputting, at the second node of the network, a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes a representation of the pace, the set of instructions, selectable elements, or any combination thereof”;f. “receiving, at the first node of the network, a user input at the GUI; and”;g. “performing one or more operations based at least in part on the user input, the operations comprising adjusting the set of instructions, adjusting the pace, or any combination thereof.”
Therefore, the portions highlighted in bold above recite collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, which is an abstract idea grouped within the certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo two-part test (see MPEP 2106.04). The claims are grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity because the steps recited describe the commercial or legal interaction of sales optimization, the claims are also grouped within mathematical concepts because the steps recited describe using an algorithm to determine a selling pace, which represents a mathematical calculation. Additionally, the claims are also grouped within mental processes because the steps recited describe collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. In situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, the language identified in the certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts and mental processes groupings were considered as a single abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of a memory; and a processor; a non-transitory computer readable medium; a first/second node of a network. These additional element perform the steps or functions such as: “receiving… data…”, “receiving… data…”, “determining a pace…”, “transmitting… instructions…”, “outputting… interface…”, “receiving… input…”, “performing… operations…”. These additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which only serves to use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B of the analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional computer elements, such as a memory; and a processor; a non-transitory computer readable medium; a first/second node of a network, these elements perform the steps/functions of “receiving… data…”, “receiving… data…”, “determining a pace…”, “transmitting… instructions…”, “outputting… interface…”, “receiving… input…”, “performing… operations…”, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Therefore, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 further recite the following additional language, in which elements which merely further define the identified abstract idea are marked in bold below:
h) where the first threshold is determined dynamically based on the home status data and the performance data. i) where the completion status for each home of the first plurality of homes indicates that a respective home is scheduled to be built, within a first building phase, within a second building phase, or fully built; j) where the set of instructions includes a recommendation for selling a subset of the set of homes first, the subset corresponding to one or more homes that have a completion status of fully built or within a second building phase; where the second building phase corresponds to homes that are closer to completion than homes within the first building phase. k) where the pace is determined by: applying a modified geometric series to a number of homes to be sold during the plurality of increments of the selected time period; and allocating a portion of the homes to be sold from a present increment of the plurality of increments of time to one or more future increments of time based on the modified geometric series. l) wherein the pace is determined by applying a beta distribution to the number of homes to be sold during the plurality of increments of a selected time period, wherein the beta distribution is configured to provide a lower pace for each successive increment of the selected time period. m) wherein determining the pace further comprises: determining that the pace for a first increment of a selected time period is higher than a second threshold; determining that the pace for a second increment of the selected time period is lower than the second threshold; modifying the pace for the second increment by applying at least a portion of the pace from the first increment to the second increment, the portion of the pace from the first increment being less than or equal to the difference between the second threshold and the pace for the second increment.
Examiner notes that, for elements recited in the dependent claims which were previously analyzed as additional elements of the independent claims above (i.e. a memory; and a processor; a non-transitory computer readable medium; a first/second node of a network), the assessment of these elements under step 2A and step 2B for the dependent claims is inherited from the analysis of the independent claims and omitted for brevity, unless noted by Examiner below.
With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, the claims include language which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the first threshold "is" (i.e. the description of the manner in which a threshold is determined). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 8 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17, the claims include language which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what a status "indicates". Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 8 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18, the claims include language which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the set of instructions "includes" (i.e. description of the data). Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 8 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 5, 12 and 19, Further, the claims recite item k) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of applying a geometric series and sale reallocation. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 8 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Examiner notes the claim further narrows the algorithm (mathematical calculation).
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 6, 13 and 20, Further, the claims recite item l) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of applying a beta distribution. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 8 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Examiner notes the claim further narrows the algorithm (mathematical calculation).
With respect to the eligibility analysis of claims 7, 14 and 21, Further, the claims recite item m) above, which represents the additional elements/functions of determining differences between paces, adjusting a pace. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis identified in the analysis of independent claims 1, 8 and 15. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Examiner notes the claim further narrows the algorithm (mathematical calculation).
Therefore, while the additional language h)- m) of dependent claims 2-6 7-14, and 16-21 slightly modify the analysis provided with respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 15, these additional elements/functions are insufficient to render the dependent claims eligible, as detailed above. Therefore, these dependent claims are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the language “wherein the set of instructions instruct a home builder to undertake indicate…”. This language is unclear as the addition of the term "indicate" after "to undertake" renders the scope of the language unclear, as it is unclear whether the "one or more actions" are tied to the "set of instructions" or whether the term "indicate" is intended to alter the meaning of "undertake". For purposes of Examination, Examiner adopts the former (i.e. description of what the set of instructions "indicate", even though the language in its current form is unclear. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 are also rejected since they depend on claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the language “outputting, at the second node of the network, a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes a representation of the pace, the set of instructions, selectable elements, or any combination thereof; receiving, at the first node of the network, a user input at the GUI”. This language is unclear as the claims were amended to include outputting an interface at the second node of the network and receiving, at the first node of the network, a user input at the GUI. Therefore, it is unclear the manner in which the first node receives a user input at the GUI, when the GUI is required to be outputted at the second node. The duality is demonstrated by the fact that this claim language could be interpreted as, at least, A. the second node receiving a user input through its GUI and transmitting information to the first node, or B. the GUI is outputted to both first and second nodes, and the first node receives the user input. This duality renders the scope of the claims unclear. For Examination purposes, examiner adopts the former (i.e. input received by the second node and communicated to the first node. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 are also rejected since they depend on claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dozier et al. (US 2015/0058234 A1), hereinafter Dozier, in view of Bleakley et al. (US 2013/0346151 A1), hereinafter Bleakley, and in view of Anderson et al. (US 2009/0063245 A1), hereinafter Anderson.
With respect to claims 1, 8 and 15, Dozier teaches a system for dynamically pacing homes based on home construction completion; a computer program product for dynamically pacing homes based on home construction completion, the computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium; and a method for dynamically pacing homes based on home construction completion (Method and system for computer assisted valuation modeling) comprising:
receiving, at a first node of a network, home status data for a first plurality of homes, the home status data comprising at least a completion status for each home of the plurality of homes and a target metric for the first plurality of homes (see paragraphs [0197], [0248], Fig. 2B, paragraph [0249]: “FIG. 2B is a data flow diagram of one aspect of the disclosed methods and systems. In block 252, project attributes are obtained..."Fig. 3B, paragraph [0260]: “FIG. 3B illustrates an exemplary organization for four timelines that may be presented on a display… Each of the timelines of FIG. 3B are applicable to the valuation of properties that may be sold off over time unit by unit. For example, the timelines of FIG. 3B may be used by developers of condominium projects, or a developer of single family homes…. These changes tailor the timeline 302b for a real estate developer not engaged in leasing properties, but instead is focused only on constructing properties and selling them after development is finished …” Time parameters, paragraph [0272]; Fig. 10, block 1005, paragraph [0284]: “In block 1005, project type data is received from a user... The project type data may enable a device performing process 1000 to determine which variation of the project timelines shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B should be applied.”; paragraph [0285]: “In some aspects, the project type data is received from a user over a network….”; Fig. 16I, block 1652, sales price determination paragraph [0369]));
receiving, at the first node of the network, performance data for a second plurality of homes, the performance data indicating one or more historic performance values in the second plurality of homes (see Fig. 16I, paragraph [0370]: “In block 1654, one or more properties comparable to the subject property may be identified. As discussed above with respect to FIG. 16B, the comparables may be determined based on matching one or more characteristics of the subject property with properties in a comparables database. As shown in FIG. 16B, in some aspects, the characteristics may include one or more of a property type, sub-type, class/quality, city population, region, a number of units in the property, the size of the property (for example, based on a square footage or other size measurement), an average rent, an age of the property, rental growth rates in the past, an expectation of whether rents will increase or decrease in the future, and the size (as a percentage basis or other indication of future trend) of the increase/decrease.);
determining a pace for selling the first plurality of homes during a time period by comparing the home status data with the performance data, where the pace includes, for a plurality of increments of the time period, a number of homes of the set of homes to be sold during a respective increment (see Fig. 10, paragraph [0290]: “In some aspects, process 1000 may include receiving additional project data after the graphical depiction of the timeline is presented. For example, as discussed above, a user may be able to perform "what if" analysis by entering updated values into one or more of the component of values boxes, for example, as shown with respect to component of value boxes 720 of FIG. 7A-7B. In some aspects, after one or more of component of value boxes 720 are updated, an electronic processor performing method 1000 may then re-compute the discounted cash flows necessary to re-present an updated project timeline based on the updated values. An updated indication of whether the project is now economically feasible may also be presented, simultaneously with the re-presented development timeline. This process may be performed iteratively until the user is satisfied with the information displayed on the timeline.”; paragraph [0292]: “The disclosed methods and systems represent improvements in these methodologies by allowing the user to automatically expand the development timeline if the proposed development shows financial infeasibility. This allows the user to experiment with delivering the "as if complete" product later to the marketplace by the amount of time indicated by a received holding period. By delivering the finished product later in the marketplace results in possibly higher price points (higher lease rates or higher unit sale price of condos, etc.) and possibly a faster absorption (faster lease-up velocity or faster sales volume for condos, etc.) When financial feasibility is found with a holding period, the discounted cash flow models may be automatically recalculated showing new timeline value including a new "as is" value when property is not ready for immediate development.”; Figs. 11A and 11B, timeline s for projects that are not economically feasible; paragraphs [0294] and [0295]: paragraph [0302]: “The disclosed methods and systems provide access to all timeline values, via the timeline graphic, which enables lenders to manage their construction management accounts more efficiently. For example, a timeline graphic including the various values associated with the phases of construction make it easier for a lender to prevent lending outside the loan-to-value limits for each stage of development timeline. Also, many developers sell their developments at different waypoint values along the development timeline. The disclosed timeline enables a lender to see the values that may be realizable at each phase of construction).
Dozier does not explicitly disclose a system, method and product comprising: where the pace is determined to prevent a change in the number of homes to be sold during any two consecutive increments of the plurality of increments from exceeding a first threshold; transmitting a set of instructions to a second node of the network, the set of instructions based on the pace, wherein the set of instructions instruct a home builder to undertake indicate one or more actions to achieve associated with the pace, the one or more actions comprising adjusting a price adjustment for a home in the first plurality of homes, adjusting an advertising effort adjustment, modifying a performance metric modification, or a combination thereof; outputting, at the second node of the network, a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes a representation of the pace, the set of instructions, selectable elements, or any combination thereof; receiving, at the first node of the network, a user input at the GUI; and performing one or more operations based at least in part on the user input, the operations comprising adjusting the set of instructions, adjusting the pace, or any combination thereof.
However, Bleakley discloses a system, method and product (Systems and methods for automated valuation of real estate developments) comprising:
where the pace is determined to prevent a change in the number of homes to be sold during any two consecutive increments of the plurality of increments from exceeding a first threshold; transmitting a set of instructions to a second node of the network, the set of instructions based on the pace, wherein the set of instructions instruct a home builder to undertake indicate one or more actions to achieve associated with the pace, the one or more actions comprising adjusting a price adjustment for a home in the first plurality of homes, adjusting an advertising effort adjustment, modifying a performance metric modification, or a combination thereof (see Fig. 6, block 640, paragraph [0056]: “At block 640, the method 600 receives a development plan that includes information on the virtual properties in the real estate development. Some embodiments of the method 600 can accommodate phased developments in which groups of properties may be constructed at different times (e.g., phase 1 in year 1, phase 2 in year 2, and so forth) or in different locations within the development (e.g., phase 1 at a north end, phase 2 at a south end, and so forth). As discussed herein, at block 640, the method 600 can reconcile the virtual property data to account for errors, inconsistencies, or questionable or unreasonable data.”; paragraph [0057]: “The information received and estimates performed at blocks 610-640 can be used at block 650 to determine the market demand and sales timeline for the properties. For example, the method 600 can determine the total time for completion of the real estate development (e.g., the time to sell all the properties) and a breakout of forecasted sales of the properties (e.g., sales per month or quarter; see example sales timeline in FIG. 3). The sales timeline can include estimated sales prices for the properties (e.g., as determined by AVM(s)) as well as upper or lower bounds on the estimated sales prices. The market demand and sales timeline can be used by a real estate developer to determine whether to purchase the underlying land to make the development and to determine profitable exit strategies. The market demand and sales timeline can be used by a lender to determine whether to finance the developer, and if so, by how much.”; paragraph [0058]: “In some instances, a developer may wish to determine which of a number of potential development plans meets the developer's goals, for example, to provide the highest valuation for the development or the shortest time to sell the properties. Accordingly, in some implementations of the method 600, blocks 640 and 650 can be repeated (as shown by arrow 660) for different development plans. The method 600 (or the developer) can analyze the results for each development plan to determine which plan most closely meets (or exceeds) the developer's goal for the development); and
outputting, at the second node of the network, a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes a representation of the pace, the set of instructions, selectable elements, or any combination thereof; (see Fig. 3, timeline report 300, paragraph [0048]: “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. In this example, the real estate development includes 217 residential properties that are sold in four plans or phases 302a-302d. The lot size and home size (in square feet) for each type of home are shown in column 304 and the number of such homes is shown in column 312. As discussed, the system 100 can use AVM valuations to estimate an average price for each type of property (column 308). 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. Based at least partly on the project market demand and price points for each type of property, the forecasting module 130 can calculate a sales timeline showing the number of sales of each type of property over time. The sales timelines for years 1, 2, 3, and 4 are presented in columns 316a, 316b, 316c, and 316d, respectively, in which numbers of sales of each type of home per quarter are shown. The report 300 also shows the average monthly sales for the development….).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the timeline reporting as disclosed by Bleakley in the system, method and product of Dozier, the motivation being to allow users to evaluate different land use scenarios, construction and marketing timelines, etc. for the development. Users can determine estimated valuations for a variety of different projected development plans in order, for example, to determine the plan that provides the highest valuation for the development, the plan that provides the shortest sales time line, the plan that provides the least development costs, and so forth (see Bleakley, paragraph [0019]).
The combination of Dozier and Bleakley does not explicitly disclose a system, method and product comprising: receiving, at the first node of the network, a user input at the GUI; and performing one or more operations based at least in part on the user input, the operations comprising adjusting the set of instructions, adjusting the pace, or any combination thereof.
However, Anderson discloses a system, method and product (Scheduling and budgeting application) comprising:
receiving, at the first node of the network, a user input at the GUI (see paragraph [0105]: “FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating an embodiment of a cash flow user interface of a scheduling and budget application. In the example shown, three tabs are shown corresponding to three user interfaces: the scheduling user interface, the budgeting user interface, and the contacts user interface. The cash flow user interface is shown as part of the budgeting tab or user interface.”; paragraph [0106]: “In some embodiments, a user selects a tab, radio button, or other interactive element associated with the cash flow user interface, and in response, the project engine processes data (such as departments, categories, line items and fees) and performs required calculations (e.g., subtotals, totals, percentages, etc.) to compute and display the cash flow. In some embodiments, the UI engine processes the data, renders it and dynamically displays it in a cash flow format, with pre-defined sorting, subtotaling and percentage calculations. In some embodiments, the user can toggle an interactive feature to define the periodic intervals for the cash flow, e.g., weekly or monthly line items, and the UI engine processes and renders the data and displays the correlated interval view.”; paragraph [0113]: “In some applications, schedule changes require professionals to manually update each affected item and week in the cash flow document. They also must separately update the budget to reflect changes. By contrast, the scheduling and budget application allows users to make changes in the cash flow view that automatically update the schedule and the master budget.”; paragraph [0122]: “In some embodiments, a user selects a tab, radio button, or other interactive feature associated with the reports user interface, and in response, the UI engine processes and renders the available reports from the database and displays them to the user.”; ); and
performing one or more operations based at least in part on the user input, the operations comprising adjusting the set of instructions, adjusting the pace, or any combination thereof. (see paragraph [0123]: “In some embodiments, upon user selection of a report, the project engine processes all data (such as departments, categories, line items and fees) and performs required calculations (e.g., subtotals, totals, percentages, etc.) for that report. The UI engine processes the data, renders it and dynamically displays it in the appropriate report format, with pre-defined sorting, subtotaling and percentage calculations.”; see also report contents, paragraphs [0125]-[0134)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the scheduling and budgeting application as disclosed by Anderson in the system, method and product of Dozier and Bleakley, the motivation being to track the impact of schedule changes while manipulating the schedule, in order to make budget-limited/-sensitive scheduling decisions during the scheduling process (see Anderson, paragraph [0104]).
With respect to the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “the home status data comprising at least a completion status for each home of the plurality of homes and a target metric for the first plurality of homes”; “the performance data indicating one or more historic performance values in the second plurality of homes”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05. In addition, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “where the pace is determined to prevent a change in the number of homes to be sold during any two consecutive increments of the plurality of increments from exceeding a first threshold”; “wherein the set of instructions instruct a home builder to undertake indicate one or more actions to achieve associated with the pace, the one or more actions comprising adjusting a price adjustment for a home in the first plurality of homes, adjusting an advertising effort adjustment, modifying a performance metric modification, or a combination thereof...” , statements of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II.
With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, the combination of Dozier, Bleakley and Anderson teaches all the subject matter of the system, method and product as described above with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15. Furthermore, Bleakley disclose a system, method and product where the first threshold is determined dynamically based on the home status data and the performance data (see paragraph [0054]: “FIG. 6 is a flowchart that shows an example of a method 600 for determining market demand forecasts and sales timelines for a real estate development. In this example, the real estate development is a residential development. In some cases, it has been found that the following factors can be used to determine the selling propensity for properties in a development: home sales transactions and listings, market volatility and market cycle trends, and equity percentage in the area near the development. The method 600 can utilize such information to forecast market demand for the properties and determine an estimated sales timeline (and valuations) for the properties.”; paragraph [0055]: “In this example, at block 610, the method 600 estimates monthly supply and average selling speed for homes in the geographic area of the development. The geographic area may be determined as having the same zip code as the development (or neighboring zip codes). MLS listing information on home supply, inventory, or demand, and sales closing data can be used. The method 600 may receive tolerances (e.g., +/-15%) in order to provide estimated upper or lower bounds on the supply and selling speed for homes. At block 620, the method 600 estimates market cycle trends in the area. For example, the method 600 can estimate appreciation or depreciation in values for the homes in the area. In some cases, the method 600 can use market indices such as HPI to forecast home price trends, market volatility, and elasticity in the area. At block 630, the method 600 can estimate equity percentage (or negative equity percentage) in the area.”). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 2, 9 and 16 is a method claim and recites “where the first threshold is determined dynamically based on the home status data and the performance data...”, language directed to not positively recited method steps. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17, the combination of Dozier, Bleakley and Anderson teaches all the subject matter of the system, method and product as described above with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15. Furthermore, Dozier disclose a system, method and product where the completion status for each home of the first plurality of homes indicates that a respective home is scheduled to be built, within a first building phase, within a second building phase, or fully built (see paragraph [0248]: “... These three timeline graphics accommodate development properties that 1) need an entitlement period before construction can start, 2) a development that does not need an entitlement period before it can start construction, 3) existing partially built properties or existing properties that need major remodeling.”); Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 3, 10 and 17 recite “where the completion status for each home of the first plurality of homes indicates that a respective home is scheduled to be built, within a first building phase, within a second building phase, or fully built”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18, the combination of Dozier, Bleakley and Anderson teaches all the subject matter of the system, method and product as described above with respect to claims 3, 10 and 17. Furthermore, Bleakley disclose a system, method and product where the set of instructions includes a recommendation for selling a subset of the set of homes first, the subset corresponding to one or more homes that have a completion status of fully built or within a second building phase; where the second building phase corresponds to homes that are closer to completion than homes within the first building phase (see paragraph [0025]: “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, number bedrooms, etc.) of each of the virtual properties can be used by the valuation analyzer 128 to determine a valuation for the development. For example, the valuation of the development can be a sum of the individual valuations for each of the virtual properties. Virtual properties can include properties that have yet to be built in the development and can be specified by each property's proposed characteristics as set forth in the development plan. In some implementations, virtual properties can also include properties that have actually been built in the development. For example, their actual characteristics can be input into the system 100, and such properties can be valued as if they were virtual. Thus, the system 100 can value individual properties based on the individual property's characteristics input to the system 100, whether or not the individual property has already been built or is to be built in the future. In some embodiments, the system 100 can receive "real world" valuations of properties that have actually been built (e.g., an appraisal valuation, a sales price, or other valuation), and the system 100 can use, at least partly, such real world valuations when valuing properties.”; paragraph [0048]: “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. In this example, the real estate development includes 217 residential properties that are sold in four plans or phases 302a-302d. The lot size and home size (in square feet) for each type of home are shown in column 304 and the number of such homes is shown in column 312. As discussed, the system 100 can use AVM valuations to estimate an average price for each type of property (column 308). 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. Based at least partly on the project market demand and price points for each type of property, the forecasting module 130 can calculate a sales timeline showing the number of sales of each type of property over time. The sales timelines for years 1, 2, 3, and 4 are presented in columns 316a, 316b, 316c, and 316d, respectively, in which numbers of sales of each type of home per quarter are shown. The report 300 also shows the average monthly sales for the development. The report 300 is provided as an illustrative example and is not intended to be limiting. In other reports, some or all of the data shown in the report 300, as well as additional or different data, can be provided by the reporting module 136.”;). Regarding the BRI of the claims, Examiner notes that claims 4, 11 and 18 recite “where the set of instructions includes a recommendation for selling a subset of the set of homes first, the subset corresponding to one or more homes that have a completion status of fully built or within a second building phase”; “where the second building phase corresponds to homes that are closer to completion than homes within the first building phase”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 5, 12 and 19, the combination of Dozier, Bleakley and Anderson teaches all the subject matter of the system, method and product as described above with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15. Furthermore, Dozier disclose a system, method and product where the pace is determined by: applying a modified geometric series to a number of homes to be sold during the plurality of increments of the selected time period; and allocating a portion of the homes to be sold from a present increment of the plurality of increments of time to one or more future increments of time based on the modified geometric series (see paragraph [0290]: “In some aspects, process 1000 may include receiving additional project data after the graphical depiction of the timeline is presented. For example, as discussed above, a user may be able to perform "what if" analysis by entering updated values into one or more of the component of values boxes, for example, as shown with respect to component of value boxes 720 of FIG. 7A-7B. In some aspects, after one or more of component of value boxes 720 are updated, an electronic processor performing method 1000 may then re-compute the discounted cash flows necessary to re-present an updated project timeline based on the updated values. An updated indication of whether the project is now economically feasible may also be presented, simultaneously with the re-presented development timeline. This process may be performed iteratively until the user is satisfied with the information displayed on the timeline.”; paragraph [0298]: “FIGS. 11D-E show project timelines 1172 and 1182 that include respective holding periods 1174 and 1184. A fourth DCF may be used to generate the current "as is hold" value 1172b and 1182b of the property when it is ready for immediate development. The results of this fourth discounted cash flow may be displayed on the project timeline as shown in FIGS. 11D-E.”; paragraph [0398]: “In addition to the periodic comparison of a portfolio to the comparables database, the user may update parameters associated with individual properties in the portfolio. For example, changes in rental income, occupancy, and market expectations of each property's specific return on investment may be updated.”; Fig. 20, paragraph [0399]: “FIG. 20 is a method of periodic revaluation and reporting of a portfolio of assets. In some aspects, process 2000 may be performed by one or more of the web server(s) 170a-c. Alternatively, process 2000 may be performed by a desktop, laptop, tablet or other personal computing device when the methods and systems disclosed are not provided via a web based delivery model.”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20, the combination of Dozier, Bleakley and Anderson teaches all the subject matter of the system, method and product as described above with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15. Furthermore, Dozier disclose a system, method and product wherein the pace is determined by applying a beta distribution to the number of homes to be sold during the plurality of increments of a selected time period, wherein the beta distribution is configured to provide a lower pace for each successive increment of the selected time period (see paragraph [0290]: “In some aspects, process 1000 may include receiving additional project data after the graphical depiction of the timeline is presented. For example, as discussed above, a user may be able to perform "what if" analysis by entering updated values into one or more of the component of values boxes, for example, as shown with respect to component of value boxes 720 of FIG. 7A-7B. In some aspects, after one or more of component of value boxes 720 are updated, an electronic processor performing method 1000 may then re-compute the discounted cash flows necessary to re-present an updated project timeline based on the updated values. An updated indication of whether the project is now economically feasible may also be presented, simultaneously with the re-presented development timeline. This process may be performed iteratively until the user is satisfied with the information displayed on the timeline.”; paragraph [0298]: “FIGS. 11D-E show project timelines 1172 and 1182 that include respective holding periods 1174 and 1184. A fourth DCF may be used to generate the current "as is hold" value 1172b and 1182b of the property when it is ready for immediate development. The results of this fourth discounted cash flow may be displayed on the project timeline as shown in FIGS. 11D-E.”; paragraph [0398]: “In addition to the periodic comparison of a portfolio to the comparables database, the user may update parameters associated with individual properties in the portfolio. For example, changes in rental income, occupancy, and market expectations of each property's specific return on investment may be updated.”; Fig. 20, paragraph [0399]: “FIG. 20 is a method of periodic revaluation and reporting of a portfolio of assets. In some aspects, process 2000 may be performed by one or more of the web server(s) 170a-c. Alternatively, process 2000 may be performed by a desktop, laptop, tablet or other personal computing device when the methods and systems disclosed are not provided via a web based delivery model.”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claims 7, 14 and 21, the combination of Dozier, Bleakley and Anderson teaches all the subject matter of the system, method and product as described above with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15. Furthermore, Dozier disclose a system, method and product wherein determining the pace further comprises: determining that the pace for a first increment of a selected time period is higher than a second threshold; determining that the pace for a second increment of the selected time period is lower than the second threshold; modifying the pace for the second increment by applying at least a portion of the pace from the first increment to the second increment, the portion of the pace from the first increment being less than or equal to the difference between the second threshold and the pace for the second increment (see paragraph [0290]: “In some aspects, process 1000 may include receiving additional project data after the graphical depiction of the timeline is presented. For example, as discussed above, a user may be able to perform "what if" analysis by entering updated values into one or more of the component of values boxes, for example, as shown with respect to component of value boxes 720 of FIG. 7A-7B. In some aspects, after one or more of component of value boxes 720 are updated, an electronic processor performing method 1000 may then re-compute the discounted cash flows necessary to re-present an updated project timeline based on the updated values. An updated indication of whether the project is now economically feasible may also be presented, simultaneously with the re-presented development timeline. This process may be performed iteratively until the user is satisfied with the information displayed on the timeline.”; paragraph [0298]: “FIGS. 11D-E show project timelines 1172 and 1182 that include respective holding periods 1174 and 1184. A fourth DCF may be used to generate the current "as is hold" value 1172b and 1182b of the property when it is ready for immediate development. The results of this fourth discounted cash flow may be displayed on the project timeline as shown in FIGS. 11D-E.”; paragraph [0398]: “In addition to the periodic comparison of a portfolio to the comparables database, the user may update parameters associated with individual properties in the portfolio. For example, changes in rental income, occupancy, and market expectations of each property's specific return on investment may be updated.”; Fig. 20, paragraph [0399]: “FIG. 20 is a method of periodic revaluation and reporting of a portfolio of assets. In some aspects, process 2000 may be performed by one or more of the web server(s) 170a-c. Alternatively, process 2000 may be performed by a desktop, laptop, tablet or other personal computing device when the methods and systems disclosed are not provided via a web based delivery model.”). The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, pages 10-12, filed on 12/23/2025), with respect to the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered but are not persuasive. , Applicant asserts “The Examiner indicated that amendments removing certain intended-use language and reciting features relating to a graphical user interface and user input would overcome the current rejections, although further search and review would be required. ”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to the Examiner Interview Summary Record dated 12/18/2025, no such agreement was reached. Examiner notes the proposed claims were not discussed. Examiner notes that the BRI of the claims do not require the "pace" to be part of the GUI or the operations, given the alternative language "or". For instance, the BRI of the claims include an embodiment in which a "set of instructions" is outputted (i.e. unrelated to the pace), a user input is received, and an operation comprising adjusting the set of instructions is performed. Therefore, the proposed claim amendments introduce language much broader than the alternatives discussed during the interview. Examiner notes that the suggestion of the incorporation of the GUI at a second node and user interaction with this GUI was in context of the pace previously claimed. The newly introduced language, however, includes at least one embodiment in which this aspect (pace) is not required in the functions of the outputting/receiving/performing steps/functions. Therefore, upon further analysis in view of the current BRI, Examiner is still in the position that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, as detailed above. The new and amended claims do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea itself, therefore the claims are still rejected under 35 USC § 101 as further detailed above.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, page 12, filed on 12/23/2025), with respect to the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection of the amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Patent Literature
Mcclure (US 2008/0126114 A1) discloses system and method for project management of land development, including a project management engine interconnecting a plurality of workstations.
Kamiya (US 2003/0046220 A1) discloses apparatus, method and program for supporting trade transaction, including forecasting means for forecasting quantity of future sales by the buyer on a per-product basis based upon performance of sales to a customer by the buyer with regard to each product of a plurality of types.
Rabb et al. (US 2007/0219840 A1) disclose system and method for web based project management, including creating a budget for one or more projects and land parcels and enabling one or more individuals to amend the budget, and the step of enabling one or more users to add and/or delete projects, performance tasks, and milestone.
Elazouni (US 2003/0233303 A1) discloses method and apparatus for finance-based scheduling of construction projects, including a tool for helping contractors make key decisions regarding bidding for new projects, determining construction rates, and specifying optimum commencement dates of new projects.
Non-Patent Literature
Yahong Zheng (NPL 2011, listed in PTO-892 as page 1, reference "U") disclose Application of Postponement Strategy in Distribution Period for Treating Uncertain Demand in Supply Chain Management, including reschedule supply chain regardless of quantity of demand and to supply different replenishment strategy for a decision maker.
Mubarak (NPL 2010, listed in PTO-892 as page 1, reference "V") disclose Construction project scheduling and control, including monitoring progress of work and compare actual progress (schedule and cost) with the baseline (as-planned) schedule and budget.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571)270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698