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 .
Detailed Action
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed 01/12/2026.
The effective filing date of the present application is 07/19/2021.
Claims 21 – 33 are pending; claims 1 – 20 being presently cancelled, claims 30 – 33 being new.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's remarks of 01/23/2026 have been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 26 – 28 have rendered a previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as moot; therefore, the previous rejection for these claims is withdrawn.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
generating, by a configuration simulation module, in claim 30;
computing, by a cost estimation module, in claim 30;
computing, by a timeline estimation module, in claim 30;
computing, by a market pricing module, in claim 30;
computing, by a financial model module, in claim 30.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 21 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of analysis, the instant claims are directed towards methods and systems. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims describe determining potential financial outcomes for a property. The method recited describes evaluations and opinions of potential values for various configurations for a property. These evaluations can practically be performed in the human mind. Therefore, they recite a mental process and an abstract idea.
Claim 21 contains elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method for simulating a potential financial outcome for real property, executed by a processor of a computerized system comprising a processor and a database, the method comprising the processor:
determining existing property attributes for an existing property;
determining an acquisition value for the existing property based on existing property attributes; and
determining a potential financial outcome for the existing property based on existing property attributes and acquisition value; and
storing, in a property outcome table, entries associating a first unique identifier (UID) for the existing property with at least one second UID for each simulated reconfiguration of that property, wherein each table entry includes computed conversion cost, conversion timeline, and potential financial outcome, and wherein search results are generated by mapping a property identifier to the first UID and returning all entries associated with that first UID.
Claim 29 contains elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A system comprising a distributed computerized system with hardware and specialized software components for simulating a potential financial outcome for real property, the system comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions embodied thereon which, when executed by the computerized system, causes the computerized system to:
store information to a table comprising a first unique identifier (UID) corresponding to each of one or more existing properties in an existing configuration,
determine existing property attributes for each existing property in the existing configuration;
determine an acquisition value corresponding to the existing property in the existing configuration;
store to the table the existing the existing property attributes and the acquisition value associated with the first UID;
determine one or more potential reconfigurations of each existing property;
storing to the table a second UID corresponding to the one or more potential reconfigurations of the existing property, each second UID associated in the table with a first UID;
determining a reconfiguration value corresponding to each of the one or more reconfigurations;
store each reconfiguration value to the table associated with each second UID;
receive a real estate search request comprising an existing property and one or more property attributes;
mapping the existing property to the first UID; and
generating search results from the table comprising all entries corresponding to the first UID, wherein each table entry associated with a first UID and a corresponding second UID includes computed conversion cost, conversion timeline, and potential financial outcome for the associated simulated reconfiguration.
Claim 30 contains elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A computer-implemented method for generating and storing pre-simulated real estate development scenarios, the method comprising: for each existing property in a plurality of existing properties within a defined geography, performing, by one or more processors on a recurring basis, the following:
(a) receiving, from a plurality of data sources, property data characterizing the existing property;
(b) generating, by a configuration simulation module, a plurality of potential reconfigurations for the existing property based at least in part on zoning data, building code data, and the property data;
(c) for each potential reconfiguration in the plurality of potential reconfigurations:
(i) computing, by a cost estimation module, conversion cost data representing an estimated cost to convert the existing property from an existing configuration to the potential reconfiguration;
(ii) computing, by a timeline estimation module, timeline data representing an estimated duration to convert the existing property to the potential reconfiguration;
(iii) computing, by a market pricing module, market value data representing an estimated market value of the potential reconfiguration;
(iv) computing, by a financial model module, financial outcome data representing at least one projected return metric for the potential reconfiguration based at least in part on the conversion cost data, the timeline data, and the market value data; and
(v) generating a configuration record comprising the conversion cost data, the timeline data, the market value data, and the financial outcome data;
(d) assigning a first unique identifier to the existing property, wherein the first unique identifier uniquely identifies the existing property across all properties in the plurality of existing properties;
(e) for each configuration record generated in step (c), assigning a second unique identifier that uniquely identifies the corresponding potential reconfiguration, and associating the second unique identifier with the first unique identifier; and
(f) storing, in a normalized property outcome database, a plurality of entries, each entry comprising:
(i) the first unique identifier for the existing property;
(ii) a second unique identifier for a corresponding potential reconfiguration; and
(iii) the configuration record for the corresponding potential reconfiguration;
wherein the normalized property outcome database aggregates all configuration records generated by the configuration simulation module, the cost estimation module, the timeline estimation module, the market pricing module, and the financial model module for each existing property in the plurality of existing properties; and
wherein the normalized property outcome database is structured to support retrieval of all entries associated with the existing property by querying the first unique identifier alone; and retrieval of a single entry associated with a specific potential reconfiguration by querying both the first unique identifier and the second unique identifier.
Claim 31 contains elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A system comprising a distributed computerized system with hardware and specialized software components for simulating a potential financial outcome for real property, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions embodied thereon which, when executed by the computerized system, causes the computerized system to:
store property information to a key-value database, wherein the key-value database comprises:
a first unique identifier (UID) designated as an Original Property Identifier (OID) corresponding to each of one or more existing properties in an existing configuration, wherein the OID serves as a partition key in the key-value database;
at least one second UID designated as a Configuration Identifier (CID) corresponding to one or more potential reconfigurations of the existing property, wherein each CID serves as a sort key in the key-value database and is associated with the OID for the existing property;
wherein each pair of OID and CID points to a property configuration such that one existing property marked with an OID can have a plurality of different reconfiguration variants, each marked with a distinct CID;
determine existing property attributes for each existing property in the existing configuration;
determine an acquisition value corresponding to the existing property in the existing configuration;
store to the key-value database the existing property attributes and the acquisition value associated with the OID;
determine one or more potential reconfigurations of each existing property;
for each potential reconfiguration, store to the key-value database a CID corresponding to the potential reconfiguration, each CID associated in the key-value database with the OID for the existing property;
determine a reconfiguration value corresponding to each of the one or more potential reconfigurations;
store each reconfiguration value to the key-value database associated with the corresponding CID;
receive, via a search tool interface, a real estate search request comprising at least one filter parameter selected from the group consisting of: a location filter and a configuration properties filter;
responsive to the real estate search request, query the key-value database to identify property configurations satisfying the at least one filter parameter;
generate a search result comprising a list of documents, each document in the search result identified by a pair of OID and CID; and
transmit the search result to a front end application, wherein the front end application is configured to:
fetch one property configuration using a unique pair of OID and CID; or
fetch all property configurations for a particular existing property using only the OID.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP § 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 21, 29, 30, and 31, recite only the following additional elements:
a processor of a computerized system comprising a processor and a database;
a distributed computerized system with hardware and specialized software components, the system comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions embodied thereon;
a configuration simulation module;
a cost estimation module;
a timeline estimation module;
a market pricing module;
a financial module;
a front end application.
These elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in the disclosure, at Specification [0057 – 0060] and Figures 1A (Computer System ‘10’) and 3, as filed. Simply implementing the abstract ideas on a generic computer, (“… the computer system 300 may include a computing device 310, such as a special-purpose computer designed and implemented for receiving user inputs, determining and directing and controlling the output of signals. The computing device 310 may be or include data sources, client devices, and so forth. In certain aspects, the computing device 310 may be implemented using hardware or a combination of software and hardware. The computing device 310 may be a standalone device, a device integrated into another entity or device, a platform distributed across multiple entities, or a virtualized device executing in a virtualization environment”), is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The amended claims include modules, however, this is defined as: “[t]he functional architecture of the computer system comprises a number of modules that process data and determine outputs”. When employed on the computer system generically defined, this to results in use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (a processor of a computerized system comprising a processor and a database; a distributed computerized system with hardware and specialized software components, the system comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions embodied thereon; modules; a front end application), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). As noted above, (to receive, store, or transmit data), does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Dependent claims 22 – 28 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 21. References to reconfiguration costs, conversion costs, timelines, and attributes, of an existing property or a plurality of properties, are further recitations to the properties that will be evaluated and have potential financial outcomes evaluated for. They make up the core attributes of a property and are implicit in the evaluations. Furthermore, these claims include recitations that amount to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea on a computerized system, using the generically described devices noted earlier. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
New dependent claims 32 and 33 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 31. References to documents comprising property attributes and acquisition values, are further recitations to the properties that will be evaluated and have potential financial outcomes evaluated for. They make up the core attributes of the property and are implicit in the evaluations. Furthermore, these claims include recitations that amount to no more than simply instructing one to utilize a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), - a database. See MPEP § 2106.05(f); these elements do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 21 – 33 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant first remarks as to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection for all previous claims, and argues that the claims, as amended, are not directed to a mental process and are integrated into a practical application. See page 9. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues that the amended claims have been amended to recite “a specific data architecture…”. See page 9. Applicant argues that the amended claims “define a concrete storage and retrieval model that binds existing-property configurations and multiple simulated reconfigurations through UID linkages to support high-throughput search and analytics across multiple pre-simulated scenarios.” See page 10. Applicant adds that the discussed architecture improves system steps that are not practical or feasible as a mental step. This is not a persuasive or reasonable argument when discussing claim analysis.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As detailed above, the amended claims set forth steps for determining potential financial outcomes for a property. These method steps describe evaluations and opinions of potential values (determining attributes, acquisition costs, and determining outcomes) for various configurations for a property. These evaluations can practically be performed in the human mind, and have been performed throughout the real estate profession when valuing and appraising real property values and conducting remodeling estimates.
The Examiner adds that courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind; as well as noting that a general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further regarding the instant amended claims, the instant disclosure details: “As shown in Figure 1B, the databases store data used by and produced by the system 10.Database(s) 20 store datasets used as inputs by the modules of the system to carry out the methods described herein.”; and, “The Megatable 27 is the database where all outputs from every module are appended and stored.” Specification [0094 and 0105]. Therefore, at Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite a mental process and an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application if the additional elements describe certain conditions that show this integration. These considerations are set forth in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). No such additional elements are present within the instant amended claims that would show integration. As detailed above, the additional elements recite: a processor of a computerized system comprising a processor and a database; a distributed computerized system with hardware and specialized software components, the system comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions embodied thereon; modules; a front end application.
These elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in the disclosure, at Specification [0057 – 0060] and Figures 1A (Computer System ‘10’) and 3, as filed. Simply implementing the abstract ideas on a generic computer, (“… the computer system 300 may include a computing device 310, such as a special-purpose computer designed and implemented for receiving user inputs, determining and directing and controlling the output of signals. The computing device 310 may be or include data sources, client devices, and so forth. In certain aspects, the computing device 310 may be implemented using hardware or a combination of software and hardware. The computing device 310 may be a standalone device, a device integrated into another entity or device, a platform distributed across multiple entities, or a virtualized device executing in a virtualization environment”), is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The amended claims include modules, however, a description of this additional element reveals: “[t]he functional architecture of the computer system comprises a number of modules that process data and determine outputs”. When employed on the computer-implemented system generically defined, this to results in use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applicant points to this aspect when arguing “[t]his architecture improves how the system organizes, indexes, and retrieves data at scale to deliver UID-scoped search results that are not practical or feasible as a mental step.” Page 10.
Applicant adds a cite to paragraphs [0192 – 0195] to further defines this concrete structure. However, a review of this disclosure reveals certain elements within the claims, (key-value database), further defines a “data storage paradigm designed for storing, retrieving, and managing associative arrays”; thus, more use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data, per MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and this configuration of data storage does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant points to Enfish as showing analogous claims that improvements in how data is stored and retrieved. See page 11. Applicant argues that the instant amended claims “improves how the system stores, indexes, and retrieves multi-scenario simulation data, enabling high-throughput queries that would not be possible with conventional data storage approaches.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant that the instant claims include the components or steps of the invention that provide any improvement argued.
Applicant argues that the combination of “UID-linking across multi-scenario simulations, storing computerized outcomes tied to both first and second UIDs, and generating query results by UID mapping is not a field-generic instruction”. See page 11. The Examiner remarks that this combination may show ‘how’ or ‘where’ the various outcomes are listed in the “Megatable”, but does not show how data storage is improved. Further, data storage is employed using the computer system shown schematically in FIG 1A. Thus, illustrating the non-criticality of the system components described, and relying on ordinary devices for storage – again, showing reliance on a system and not reflecting any improvement to the system. Applicant further alludes to any improvement being merely in the abstract realm; when arguing an improvement to “a practical, technical, implementation for market-scale real estate simulation and search.” This description can aptly be read as ‘use a computer to conduct number crunching and what-if scenarios to determine property valuations’. Applicant points to the use of computers to improve a manual process; “[t]he large volume of variables impacting the real estate market prevents professionals in the industry from accurately and efficiently modeling the present value and future potential of a given property.”; and, “[e]valuating construction costs across a set of potential building configurations is difficult and time consuming. Again, any improvement described by the claims would be directed to improving property evaluations processing a lot of data, in a faster manner, by using a computer in its ordinary fashion to crunch the data. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues analysis at Step 2B – (Inventive Concept). See page 12. Based on similar reasoning as above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. First, as detailed above, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As detailed throughout, the additional elements of: (a processor of a computerized system comprising a processor and a database; a distributed computerized system with hardware and specialized software components, the system comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions embodied thereon; modules; a front end application), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Second, an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next discusses rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See pages 12 – 17. In view of the amendments to the claims and after a further search, the Examiner finds these arguments persuasive. A further discussion is below.
Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections within this Office Action.
Claims Distinguished Over Prior Art
Regarding claims 21, 29, 30, and 31, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Upon updated research, it is concluded that the prior art of record does not disclose the claimed combination of elements, in combination, as recited within the noted claims. Various prior art teaches methods for interactive web-based processing of real estate transactions, (Wickersham); others teach real estate valuation, (Jagdev).
However, the prior art of record does not disclose the following claimed elements, either alone, or in combination within claims 21, 29, 30, and 31:
determining a potential financial outcome for the existing property based on existing property attributes and acquisition value; and storing, in a property outcome table, entries associating a first unique identifier (UID) for the existing property with at least one second UID for each simulated reconfiguration of that property, wherein each table entry includes computed conversion cost, conversion timeline, and potential financial outcome, and wherein search results are generated by mapping a property identifier to the first UID and returning all entries associated with that first UID;
determine one or more potential reconfigurations of each existing property; storing to the table a second UID corresponding to the one or more potential reconfigurations of the existing property, each second UID associated in the table with a first UID;
determining a reconfiguration value corresponding to each of the one or more reconfigurations;
store each reconfiguration value to the table associated with each second UID;
receive a real estate search request comprising an existing property and one or more property attributes;
mapping the existing property to the first UID; and
generating search results from the table comprising all entries corresponding to the first UID, wherein each table entry associated with a first UID and a corresponding second UID includes computed conversion cost, conversion timeline, and potential financial outcome for the associated simulated reconfiguration.
Regarding claims 22 – 28 and 32 -33, based on their dependency to independent claims 21 and 31, they inherit the distinguished claim limitations and are therefore, also not disclosed by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ghosh discloses a method for determining a value of commercial real estate. Lyons discusses a real estate investment system and method of controlling a commercial system by generating key investment indicators. Martinovic details a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative model for a real estate development project.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights