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 .
Claim Status
As of the Office Action dated July 2, 2025 claims 1-20 were pending and claims 1-20 stood rejected. Claims 1-6 and 12 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-20 are therefore currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “…present a graphical user interface displaying real estate property listings with integrated analytics comprising comparable property data and market trends”. The only clear recitation of integrated analytics comprising comparable property data and market trends is in the drawings and in particular at Figure 4 which shows a selectable feature button “property analytics”. The written disclosure describes at paragraph 00043 that the system “…supports an application programming interface (API) from data sources that captures hundreds of data points, namely real-time data that may be related to a real estate property, which ultimately can be accessed and viewed by potential purchasers”. As no description can be found that actually describes the computation of analytics and market trends Examiner is interpreting this limitation as being directed toward the importation of externally computed data as this is the only interpretation that has clear support in the written disclosure. However the language of the claim is broader in scope than what is taught by written disclosure and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses other means for obtaining analytics with comparable property data and market trends.
Claim 1 recites “…enable instant purchase execution based on predefined buyer criteria without traditional offer review cycles”. Examiner is only seeing where the written disclosure at paragraph 00040 regarding the instant purchase feature and the drawing of Figure 11 which shows a form with fillable fields for name, phone number, role, company name, proposed purchase amount, proposed earnest money, due data and period of due diligence. Based on these two recitations from the written disclosure Examiner is deeming that support for this language to be limited to information obtained from a fillable form. However the language of the claim is broader in scope than what is taught by written disclosure and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses other means for basing a purchase based on predefined buyer criteria.
Claim 1 recites “…implement a transaction coordination engine that: facilitates direct communication between buyer and seller portals without real estate agent intermediation; automatically populates contract templates upon mutual acceptance; coordinates escrow initiation and payment processing; and maintains an audit trail of transaction stages for compliance purposes.”. The language triggers the three prong analysis under MPEP § 2181 as at least two prongs of the three prong analysis for determining that a claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph are present i.e. a generic placeholder term “transaction coordination engine” that can be viewed as a substitute for means is present and the term is modified by functional language. However at the beginning of the claim sufficient structure in the form of a processor is present and the recited functions of facilitating direct communication, populating templates, coordinating escrow initiation and maintaining an audit trail can be accomplished by any general purpose processor and therefore the recited processor at the beginning of the claim constitutes sufficient structure for performing the recited acts and requires no particular algorithm for that would necessitate a special purpose processor. Therefore the third prong of the analysis is not met and as such 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 sixth paragraph is deemed to have not been invoked even though prongs one and two have been satisfied under the analysis. Therefore the language is being interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 3 recites “…wherein the system further comprises a transaction orchestration engine enforcing machine controlled negotiation states.” The language triggers the three prong analysis under MPEP § 2181 as at least two prongs of the three prong analysis for determining that a claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph are present i.e. a generic placeholder term “transaction orchestration engine” that can be viewed as a substitute for means is present and the term is modified by functional language. In reviewing the written disclosure at Figure 3 and the operation labeled 320 there are only two options for negotiation where the offer can either be accepted or rejected which is a binary decision. If the offer is rejected another binary decision is evaluated as to whether or not a new counteroffer has been made which can restart the process. The recited general purpose processor present at the beginning of claim 1 constitutes sufficient structure for performing the acts being claimed and requires no particular algorithm for implementing the binary decisions that would necessitate a special purpose processor. Therefore the third prong of the analysis is not met and as such 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 sixth paragraph is deemed to have not been invoked even though prongs one and two have been satisfied under the analysis. Therefore the language is being interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines of MPEP § 2106 state the process and the analysis to be used in determining whether claimed subject matter recites an abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.04), whether a claim contains a practical application of the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.04(d) in conjunction with MPEP § 2106.05 (a)-(c) and (e)-(h)) and whether a claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). Examiner has followed the analysis presented in these sections in reaching the conclusion that the claims are directed towards ineligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not tied to any of the sections of the MPEP that are used in determining subject matter eligibility and offers nothing more than mere allegations that the claims are directed towards eligible subject matter and must therefore be viewed as deficient. Therefore the present rejection of claims 1-20 is being maintained.
Applicant’s argument with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) rejection of claims 1-7 as being anticipated by Pagliano et al. (U.S. Patent 11,748,828, hereinafter referred to as Pagliano) has been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 8-9 as being unpatentable as being unpatentable over Pagliano in view of Castonguay et al. (U.S. Patent 10,102,597, hereinafter referred to as Castonguay) has been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 10 as being unpatentable as being unpatentable over Pagliano in view of Castonguay and in further view of Hammill et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0343442, hereinafter referred to as Hammill) has been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 11-19 as being unpatentable as being unpatentable over Pagliano in view of Castonguay and in view of Hammill and in further view of Graham et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0343442, hereinafter referred to as Graham) has been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 20 as being unpatentable as being unpatentable over Pagliano in view of Castonguay and in view of Hammill and in view of Graham and in further view of Broerman (U.S. Patent 6,594,633) has been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system comprising a processor and a memory and therefore meets eligibility step 1 as a system is a machine and therefore falls under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter (MPEP § 2106.03).
The analysis then proceeds to Step 2A which is a two-prong step in which the claim is analyzed as to whether the claim is directed towards a judicial exception and if so whether the claim contains a practical application of the judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.04 (II)(A)). Claim 1 recites operations of receiving data associated with one or more real estate properties from a first user and in response generating a real estate property listing to be accessed by a second user. Receiving data associated with one or more real estate properties and generating a listing falls under the category of a sales activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B)) and can also be viewed as a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B)) as it merely requires receiving data (an observation) and recording/displaying the received data. Displaying real estate property listings with integrated analytics comprising comparable property data and market trends also falls under the category of a sales activity as supplies the user with information used in helping the user make an informed choice. Receiving user inputs comprising offer terms for a selected property is a sales activity as it is part of a purchase operation. Enabling instant purchase execution based on predefined buyer criteria without traditional offer review cycles is also part of a purchase operation as part of a sales activity. With regard to the seller portal the operations of receiving and displaying offer data, generating counteroffer inputs, coordinating multi-party transaction stages from initial offer through closing, facilitating direct communication between buyer and seller without real estate agent intermediation, populating contracts, coordinating escrow and payments and maintaining an audit trail of the transaction stages are all part of a sales activity. Therefore under Prong One of Step 2A claim 1 is deemed as being directed towards an abstract idea and therefore is found to be ineligible subject matter.
The analysis then proceeds to Prong Two of Step 2A where the claim is analyzed in order to determine whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)). The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). The claim recites a processor and a memory which can be considered as elements. No improvement is being made to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technological field. Other elements include the operations of receiving data associated with one or more real estate properties, the implied operation of receiving real estate property listings for purposes of displaying the information, receiving user inputs comprising offer terms for a selected property, receiving offer data, facilitating direct communication between buyer and seller portals without real estate agent intermediation, populating contract templates and maintaining an audit trail can all be viewed as being directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity as they each involve the gathering or outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The operations of generating one or more real estate property listings, providing a buyer portal executed on a first computing device, presenting a graphical user interface displaying real estate property listings with integrated analytics comprising comparable property and market trends, receiving user inputs comprising offer terms for a selected property, enabling instant purchase execution based on predefined buyer criteria without traditional offer review cycles, providing a seller portal executed on a second computing device, receiving and displaying offer data via role-specific interface elements, generating counteroffer inputs through guided workflow interfaces, coordinating multi-party transaction stages from initial offer through closing, facilitating direct communication between buyer and seller portals without real estate agent intermediation, automatically populating contract templates upon mutual acceptance, coordinating escrow initiation and payment processing and maintaining an audit trail of transaction stages for compliance purposes can be viewed as mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) as they each involve a portion of the sales activity. The recitations that can be viewed as additional elements include a processor, a memory on which are stored machine-readable instructions that are executable by the processor, a buyer portal executed on a first computing device, a graphical user interface, a seller portal executed on a second computing device, role-specific interface elements, guided workflow interfaces, direct communication between buyer and seller portals, contract templates, coordinating escrow initiation and payment processing and maintaining an audit trail all of which only link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment as the recitations only limit the claim to the extent that they necessitate the use of computers and only exclude other types of devices that might be capable of performing the operations (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Clearly when considered as individual elements the claim does not form a practical application however even when viewing these elements in combination they are not sufficient to confer eligibility as nothing is present in the claim that suggests that the combination of these elements produces any effect that would distinguish the claim by virtue of the manner in which they are being combined. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A claim 1 is found to be directed towards ineligible subject matter.
The analysis then proceed to Step 2B where the claim is analyzed in order to determine whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(I)). Per MPEP § 2106.05(II):
This evaluation is made with respect to the considerations that the Supreme Court has identified as relevant to the eligibility analysis, which are introduced generally in Part I.A of this section, and discussed in detail in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (h). Many of these considerations overlap, and often more than one consideration is relevant to analysis of an additional element. Not all considerations will be relevant to every element, or every claim. Because the evaluation in Step 2B is not a weighing test, it is not important how the elements are characterized or how many considerations apply from this list. It is important to evaluate the significance of the additional elements relative to the invention, and to keep in mind the ultimate question of whether the additional elements encompass an inventive concept.
Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
In the context of the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B determines whether:
• The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (there is no inventive concept in the claim) (Step 2B: NO) and thus is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis; or
• The claim as a whole does amount to significantly more than the exception (there is an inventive concept in the claim) (Step 2B: YES), and thus is eligible at Pathway C, thereby concluding the eligibility analysis.
The claim recites a processor and a memory which can be considered as elements. No improvement is being made to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technological field. Other recitations that can be viewed as elements include the operations of receiving data associated with one or more real estate properties, the implied operation of receiving real estate property listings for purposes of displaying the information, receiving user inputs comprising offer terms for a selected property, receiving offer data, facilitating direct communication between buyer and seller portals without real estate agent intermediation, populating contract templates and maintaining an audit trail which can all be viewed as being directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity as they each involve the gathering or outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The operations of generating one or more real estate property listings, providing a buyer portal executed on a first computing device, presenting a graphical user interface displaying real estate property listings with integrated analytics comprising comparable property and market trends, receiving user inputs comprising offer terms for a selected property, enabling instant purchase execution based on predefined buyer criteria without traditional offer review cycles, providing a seller portal executed on a second computing device, receiving and displaying offer data via role-specific interface elements, generating counteroffer inputs through guided workflow interfaces, coordinating multi-party transaction stages from initial offer through closing, facilitating direct communication between buyer and seller portals without real estate agent intermediation, automatically populating contract templates upon mutual acceptance, coordinating escrow initiation and payment processing and maintaining an audit trail of transaction stages for compliance purposes can be viewed as mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) as they each involve a portion of the sales activity. The recitations that can be viewed as additional elements include a processor, a memory on which are stored machine-readable instructions that are executable by the processor, a buyer portal executed on a first computing device, a graphical user interface, a seller portal executed on a second computing device, role-specific interface elements, guided workflow interfaces, direct communication between buyer and seller portals, contract templates, coordinating escrow initiation and payment processing and maintaining an audit trail all of which only link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment as the recitations only limit the claim to the extent that they necessitate the use of computers and only exclude other types of devices that might be capable of performing the operations (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Clearly when considered as individual elements the claim does not form an inventive concept however even when viewing these elements in combination they are not sufficient to confer eligibility as nothing is present in the claim that suggests that the combination of these elements produces any effect that would distinguish the claim by virtue of the manner in which they are being combined. In further analyzing the operations of receiving data associated with one or more real estate properties, the implied operation of receiving real estate property listings for purposes of displaying the information, receiving user inputs comprising offer terms for a selected property, receiving offer data, facilitating direct communication between buyer and seller portals without real estate agent intermediation, populating contract templates and maintaining an audit trail can all be viewed as being directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity as they each involve the gathering or outputting which were held as being directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity under Prong Two of Step 2A and further analysis indicates that these operations are nothing more than necessary data gathering and outputting and do not impose meaningful limits on the claim as the claim does not recite any language with regard to these operations that would put those of ordinary skill on notice that they involve anything more than well-understood, routine and conventional operations of receiving, populating, displaying, facilitating and maintaining and therefore under Step 2B the operations do not impose any meaningful limit on the claim that contributes towards eligibility as they only recite the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting any details as to how a solution to a problem is accomplished and are extremely general in nature. Therefore under Step 2B claim 1 is found to be directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claim 2 recites “…wherein the first user is a seller of the real estate property and the second user is a buyer of the real estate property; and provide a secure communication channel between the first user and the second user for exchanging information related to the one or more real estate properties, wherein the secure communication channel includes encryption of messages transmitted between the first user and the second user.” The recitation with regard to the first user being a seller of the real estate property and the second user being a buyer of the real estate property only further describes the abstract idea of claim 1. The secure communication channel between the first user and the second user for exchanging information related to the one or more real estate properties, wherein the secure communication channel includes encryption of messages transmitted between the first user and the second user can be considered as an element under Prong Two of Step 2A but given that no particular manner of performing the encryption is recited and given that the secure communication channel is not described in any meaningful manner other than the fact that it is used to convey encrypted messages the recitation provides no meaningful limit to the claim as it merely links the claim to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and only excludes other types of communication environments. Therefore the claim is not eligible under Prong Two of Step 2A and given that the same analysis would be carried to Step 2B the claim is not deemed as being directed towards eligible subject matter under Step 2B.
Dependent claim 3 recites “…wherein the data associated with one or more real estate properties is uploaded from a seller portal on a first computer device used by the seller, and wherein the system further comprises a transaction orchestration engine enforcing machine-controlled negotiation states.” The recitation that the data is uploaded from a seller portal on a first computer device used by the seller amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity and the recitation with regard to a transaction orchestration enforcing machine-controlled negotiation states also amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea which is not described in any detail in the written disclosure and therefore can be viewed as only being an idea of a solution or outcome without any details as to how the enforcement is being carried out. Therefore no practical application of the abstract idea is present under Prong Two of Step 2A in either recitation and as no particular recitation is provided in the claim with regard to the uploading that would place those of ordinary skill on notice that the uploading is anything other than mere data gathering in a well-understood, routine and conventional manner under Step 2B no inventive concept is present that would make the claim eligible. Therefore claim 3 is held as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claim 4 recites “…wherein real estate property listing is accessed by a buyer portal on a second computer device used by the buyer, and wherein the system is configured to execute a single-action click-to-buy binding transaction commit without agent intervention.” Both recitations can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as listing property and clicking-to-buy are part of sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and both are using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the access or the click-to-buy operations are implemented these can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 5 recites “…wherein the seller portal displays data of one or more properties that have been uploaded by the seller, and wherein the system is configured to automatically trigger downstream workflows comprising escrow, contracts, and financing.” Both recitations can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as displaying property and performing escrow, contracts and financing are part of sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and both are using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the displaying or the automatic trigger operations are implemented these can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 6 recites “…wherein the buyer portal is associated with a subscription server that enables the buyer to access one or more real estate property and wherein the system enforces completion of the transaction without a human real estate agent intermediary.” Both recitations can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as providing the portal under subscription and enforcing completion of the transaction are part of sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and both are using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the providing the portal under subscription and enforcing completion of the transaction operations are implemented these can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 7 recites “…wherein the buyer portal enables a real estate property searching function for the buyer to retrieve on or more real estate property listings.” The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling a searching function is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the searching operation is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 8 recites “…wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to submit search parameters into the real estate property searching function related to one or more real estate property listings”. The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling a searching function and then allowing search parameters to be placed in the searching function is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the searching operation or the secondary operation of enabling the submission of search parameters is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 9 recites “…wherein the searching criteria comprises one or more of: address, location, parcel number, map view, and zoom area.” The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling a searching function and then allowing search parameters which include specific and particular types of searching parameters to be placed in the searching function is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the searching operation or the secondary operation of enabling the submission of search parameters including the specific parameters listed is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 10 recites “…wherein the seller portal enables the seller to submit a private invitation to a buyer for an offer on one or more real estate property listings.” The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling a searching function and then allowing search parameters which include specific and particular types of searching parameters to be placed in the searching function is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the searching operation or the secondary operation of enabling the submission of search parameters including the specific parameters listed is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 11 recites “…wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to receive automatic recommendations related to the one or more real estate property listings. The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling the buyer to receive automatic recommendations related to the one or more real estate property listings is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the enabling operation is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 12 recites “…wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to submit an offer on at least one real estate property listing through a streamlined interface that bypasses traditional agent-mediated workflows.” The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling the buyer to submit an offer on at least one real estate property listing through a streamlined interface that bypasses traditional agent-mediated workflows is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the enabling operation is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 13 recites “…wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to submit an initial offer on at least one real estate property listing.” The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling the buyer to submit an offer on at least one real estate property listing is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the enabling operation is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 14 recites “…wherein the seller portal enables the seller to be notified and view the initial offer on at least one real estate property listing”. The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling the seller to be notified and view the initial offer on at least one real estate property listing is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the enabling operation is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 15 recites “…wherein the seller portal enables the seller to interact with the initial offer.” The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling the seller the seller to interact with the initial offer is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the enabling operation is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 16 recites “…wherein the interactions comprise at least one of: accepting the initial offer; submitting a counteroffer; and rejecting the offer.” The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling the seller to interact with the initial offer and the interactions comprise at least one of accepting the offer, submitting a counteroffer or rejecting the offer is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the enabling operation is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 17 recites “…wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to be notified and view the counteroffer from the seller on at least one real estate property listing.” The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling the buyer to be notified and view the counteroffer from the seller on at least one real estate property listing is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the enabling operation is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 18 recites “…wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to interact with the counteroffer.” The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling the buyer to interact with the counteroffer is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the enabling operation is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 19 recites “…wherein the interactions comprise at least one of: accepting the counteroffer; submitting an additional counteroffer; and rejecting the counteroffer.” The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as enabling the buyer to interact with the counteroffer where the interactions comprise accepting, submitting an additional counteroffer or rejecting the counteroffer is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the enabling operation is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
Dependent claim 20 recites “…wherein the stored machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: execute and coordinate closing actions related to the real estate transaction including processing payments, generating contracts, and communicating with attorneys.” The recitation can be viewed as being mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as coordinating closing actions related to the real estate transaction including processing payments, generating contracts, and communicating with attorneys is part of a sales activity which has been held to be an abstract idea and is using a computer to automate the existing process of making a purchase of real property. Given the absence of any details in the claim as to how the coordinating operation is implemented this can be viewed as being recited at a high level of generality that only recites an idea of an outcome without reciting any details of how the outcome is achieved. Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A there is no practical application of the abstract idea and under Step 2B there is no inventive concept present that would make the claim eligible under section 101.
None of the claims have been held as being directed towards eligible subject matter under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines. Accordingly claims 1-20 are held as being directed towards an abstract idea without any practical application and without any inventive concept that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “…receive and display offer data via role-specific interface elements”. The only clear teaching that Examiner is able to find with regard to role-specific interface elements is Figure 5 and the drop-down box labeled “industry role” where no further description is present and where the term “role-specific interface elements” can be viewed as being directed towards a genus. MPEP § 2161.01 (I) requires that for a computer-implemented functional claim limitation that claims a genus that adequate support be present and that “so long as disclosure of the species is sufficient to convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor possessed the subject matter of the genus, the genus will be supported by an adequate written description." However the inventor has not named any species within the genus as the written description does not describe any elements that can be viewed as particular or specific to any role. Therefore claim 1 is rejected as failing to meet the written description requirement.
Claim 1 recites “…generate counteroffer inputs through guided workflow interfaces”. Examiner does not see where the drawings show any plurality of interfaces for generating counteroffer inputs and the at paragraphs 0051-0053 in conjunction with Figure 3 and step 320 only show a single branch in the buyer decision box for making a counteroffer and Examiner does not see where the written disclosure fairly teaches a plurality of guided workflow interfaces for generating counteroffer inputs as a fair read on the written disclosure would only teach one workflow interface. Therefore the claim limitation is held as introducing new subject matter.
Claim 1 recites “…provide a seller portal executed on a second computing device, the seller portal configured to: …coordinate multi-party transaction stages from initial offering through closing”. Applicant did not indicate where support for the language could be found. In reviewing the written disclosure the function being claimed i.e. coordinate multi-party transaction stages from initial offering through closing is assigned to the real estate transaction platform system 110 which is described at paragraph 00042 as being “…a backend computer system(s), such as a server, that implements functionality and features that support computerized/automated real estate transaction” while the seller portal is shown as operating on the claimed second computing device. No teaching is apparent where the seller portal as is claimed is performing the operation of coordinating multi-party transaction stages from initial offering through closing as the drawing (Figure 1) and the written disclosure only describe features such as listing properties, viewing offers and interacting with real estate transactions. Therefore this recitation is being treated as new subject matter.
Claim 1 recites “…implement a transaction coordination engine …” where the term “transaction coordination engine” does not appear in the written disclosure and no particular structure can be associated with the term because the functions associated with the transaction coordination engine while recited in the written disclosure are not described as being collected into a particular entity that would read on the term. Applicant did not indicate where support for the language could be found. Applicant did not indicate where support for the language could be found. Therefore the term “transaction coordination engine” is being treated as new subject matter.
Claim 2 recites “…provide a secure communication channel between the first user and the second user for exchanging information related to the one or more real estate properties, wherein the secure communication channel includes encryption of messages transmitted between the first user and the second user.” Applicant did not indicate where support for the language could be found. Examiner is unable to find any recitation with regard to either a secure communication channel or the operation of encryption. Therefore the recitation is being treated as new subject matter.
Claim 3 recites “…a transaction orchestration engine enforcing machine-controlled negotiation states”. Applicant did not indicate where support for the term could be found. Examiner does not see any recitation that would support the term transaction orchestration engine, nor does Examiner see any recitation that would read on the enforcement of negotiation states as is claimed. Therefore the recitation is being treated as new subject matter.
Claims 2-20 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “…provide a seller portal executed on a second computing device, the seller portal configured to: … coordinate multi-party transaction stages from initial offer through closing; implement a transaction coordination engine that: facilitates direct communication between buyer and seller portals without real estate agent intermediation; automatically populates contract templates upon mutual acceptance; coordinates escrow initiation and payment processing; and maintains an audit trail of transaction stages for compliance purposes.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “coordinate multi-party transaction stages from initial offering through closing”, and the claim also recites facilitates “direct communication between buyer and seller portals without real estate agent intermediation; automatically populates contract templates upon mutual acceptance; coordinates escrow initiation and payment processing; and maintains an audit trail of transaction stages for compliance purposes” which are the narrower statements of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The limitation with regard to coordinate multi-party transaction stages from initial offering through closing would appear to encompass the same actions that are being recited as taking place i.e. the “direct communication between buyer and seller portals without real estate agent intermediation; automatically populates contract templates upon mutual acceptance; coordinates escrow initiation and payment processing; and maintains an audit trail of transaction stages for compliance purposes” language can all be viewed as actions that are performed from initial offering through closing and as the coordinating action is being claimed as taking place at the seller portal the actions of directing communication, automatically populating, coordinating escrow initiation and payment processing, and maintaining an audit trail are assigned to the transaction coordination engine it is unclear what structural boundaries exist between the seller portal and the transaction coordination engine.
Claim 3 recites “…wherein the data associated with one or more real estate properties is uploaded from a seller portal on a first computer device used by the seller”. Claim 1 recited that the buyer portal was “executed on a first computing device” and the similarity between “first computer device used by the seller” and “buyer portal executed on a first computing device” make the dependency of claim 3 with regard to claim 1 unclear as if the terms first computer device and first computing device are viewed as being the same device than the distinction between buyer portal and seller portal becomes unclear.
Claim 4 recites “…wherein real estate property listing is accessed by a buyer portal on a second computer device used by the buyer”. Claim 1 recited “…a seller portal executed on a second computing device” where again as in claim 3 the use of what might be considered as being the same device makes the distinction between the buyer portal and the seller portal unclear.
Claims 2-20 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broerman (U.S. Patent 6,594,633) in view of Shao et al. (U.S. Patent 8,024,349, hereinafter referred to as Shao) in view of Van Dyne (U.S. Patent 11,232,500).
As per claim 1
Broerman discloses a processor (4:43-56 “Computer 50 typically includes at least one processor 52 coupled to a memory 54. Processor 52 may represent one or more processors (e.g., microprocessors), and memory 54 may represent the random access memory (RAM) devices comprising the main storage of computer 50, as well as any supplemental levels of memory, e.g., cache memories, nonvolatile or backup memories (e.g., programmable or flash memories), read-only memories, etc. In addition, memory 54 may be considered to include memory storage physically located elsewhere in computer 50, e.g., any cache memory in a processor 52, as well as any storage capacity used as a virtual memory, e.g., as stored on a mass storage device 56 or on another computer coupled to computer 50 via network 62.”)
Broerman discloses a memory on which are stored machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to (5:22-33 “In general, the routines executed to implement the embodiments of the invention, whether implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions will be referred to herein as "computer programs", or simply "programs". The computer programs typically comprise one or more instructions that are resident at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processors in a computer, cause that computer to perform the steps necessary to execute steps or elements embodying the various aspects of the invention”)
Broerman discloses receive data associated with one or more real estate properties from a first user (10:26-27 “a "LIST HOME" button 140 for potential listing sellers 12;”, 12:36-41 “The list sale property routine 202 referenced in the main routine 200 of FIG. 6 is shown in FIG. 7 as a flowchart sequence of operations performed by the seller 12 and the real estate computer network 10. First, the routine 202 receives property information from the seller 12 that is entered into a property record 102 (block 230).”)
Broerman discloses in response to receiving the data associated with one or more real estate properties, generating one or more real estate property listing to be access by a second user (7:28-44 “The seller custom profile 80 includes property information associated with a real estate property, and perhaps a plurality of such properties that are concurrently listed, although an illustrative case of one property is described herein. The brokerage system 22 communicates with the property database 20 to make this information available to buyer 13. The buyer 13 would access the property information via an electronic request to search or notify the buyer 84 of properties matching certain selected criteria to a search engine 86 which queries the property database 20. Advantageously, the search engine 86 may return a listing of appropriate properties so that the buyer 13 may select those for which detailed property information is required rather than providing all of the property information without further selection. This specific request would identify a specific property for which the buyer 13 is particularly interested.”)
Broerman discloses provide a buyer portal executed on a first computing device, the buyer portal configured to: receive user inputs comprising offer terms for a selected property (2:25-37 “Consistent with another aspect of the invention, negotiation during a transaction includes electronically generating an offer by revising an electronic form under the direction of the first party, either the seller or the buyer. This electronic form includes immutable contract terms and mutable contract terms. The buyer or seller making the offer is interactively assisted in completing the form. The revised electronic form is electronically transmitted to the other party. The second party may subsequently generate a counter offer by supervising changes to the mutable contract terms and by having the counter offer electronically transmitted to the first party. Each version of the electronic form is tracked as to status and content.”)
Broerman discloses provide a seller portal executed on a second computing device, the seller portal configured to: receive and display offer data via role-specific interface elements (10:26-27 “a "LIST HOME" button 140 for potential listing sellers 12;”, 12:36-41 “The list sale property routine 202 referenced in the main routine 200 of FIG. 6 is shown in FIG. 7 as a flowchart sequence of operations performed by the seller 12 and the real estate computer network 10. First, the routine 202 receives property information from the seller 12 that is entered into a property record 102 (block 230).”)
Broerman discloses generate counteroffer inputs through guided workflow interfaces (14:30-46 “The negotiate sale routine 206 referenced in the main routine 200 of FIG. 6 is shown in FIG. 9 as a flowchart sequence of operations performed by the seller 12, the buyer 13 and the real estate computer network 10. This routine 206 shows several important aspects of the invention, providing electronic communication of various types of information, tracking a large number of actions, and overall facilitating the transaction through a critical phase that is often frustrating for buyers 13 and sellers 12, especially without use of agents. Although other iterative sequences of operations may be employed within the scope of the invention, the negotiate sale routine 206 shown does include the capability to iterate offers and counteroffers. Thus in block 330, a determination is made as to whether a pending seller counter offer exists, since this embodiment contemplates that a buyer 13 would initiate the first offer and this block 330 allows a convenient point for the routine 206 to iterate.”)
Broerman discloses coordinate multi-party transaction stages from initial offer through closing (6:26-36, “Moreover, having electronic communication between the parties allows for another important aspect of facilitating real estate transaction, electronically communicating a real estate document to either the buyer 13 or the seller 12 to facilitate the transaction. In particular, the electronically communicating the real estate transaction document may include negotiations for a purchase contract for a selected real estate property entirely through electronic communications. Legal authorization for such entirely electronic communication may require recognition of some form of document certification such as a digital signature”, 8:59-65 “However, in some embodiments, especially where required by state and local regulation, a real estate transaction facilitator 24, or facilitating entity, may receive documentation from the real estate computer network 10 in order to complete the transaction. Such facilitators 24 may include, for instance, a lawyer, a mortgage provider, and/or a title provider”)
Broerman discloses automatically populates contract templates upon mutual acceptance (2:25-37 “Consistent with another aspect of the invention, negotiation during a transaction includes electronically generating an offer by revising an electronic form under the direction of the first party, either the seller or the buyer. This electronic form includes immutable contract terms and mutable contract terms. The buyer or seller making the offer is interactively assisted in completing the form. The revised electronic form is electronically transmitted to the other party. The second party may subsequently generate a counter offer by supervising changes to the mutable contract terms and by having the counter offer electronically transmitted to the first party. Each version of the electronic form is tracked as to status and content.”, 6:41-44 “Another important aspect of the facilitating of real estate transactions in the manner described herein is tracking interactions made with the system for a number of advantages.”, 6:48-62 “Parties to a negotiation of a purchase contract 96 would benefit from knowing whether the other party has received a document such as counteroffer. Moreover, the recipient of such a counteroffer would benefit from tracking all changes made to the purchase contract 96 during the negotiation. In addition, listing, finding, negotiating and closing the sale of a real estate property requires a large number of scheduling considerations. Having a way to track, display, update and notify parties of scheduling associated with a real estate transaction is a more efficient answer than relying on telephone calls and unconnected scheduling systems. Integrating real estate transactions with buyers 13 and sellers 12 virtually connected enables a number of advantages for tracking usage by parties 12, 13 and real estate transaction documents.”, 8:20-48 “Negotiations in particular may be enhanced by the electronic purchase contract 96 which contains immutable contract terms which should remain to avoid possible illegal or ill-advised contract terms or omissions. The electronic purchase contract 96 is an example of a real estate document that may be electronically communicated by the parties to facilitate the transaction. Confidence in such terms may be advanced by incorporating state realty board recommended contracts appropriate for the property location. The electronic purchase contract 96 further includes mutable contract terms that are modified, selected, or completed by the parties. Examples would include sales price, fixtures or chattel to be included or excluded from the sale, earnest money to be held in escrow, closing date, occupancy date, additional inspections, risk borne for defects, etc. Just as the custom profiles 80, 82 may advantageously guide the parties 12, 13 in correctly providing contact and property information, the electronic purchase contract 96 may include error checking and help resources. In addition, the electronic purchase contract 96 may utilize electronic contract tracking 99 to capture each change to the electronic purchase contract 96 to assist in negotiation and in any eventual interpretation of an executed contract should a dispute arise. Not only would versions of the electronic purchase contract 96 be tracked, but also which party proposed and accepted or rejected each version, along with the date. Advantageously, the tracking would include a pending status as to whether the receiving party has been notified and has reviewed the latest offer or counteroffer.”)
Broerman discloses coordinates escrow initiation and payment processing (14:59-63 “Then, a determination is made as to whether earnest money was included in the offer that should be placed in an escrow account or other otherwise retained (block 340). If so, the escrow deposit is arranged, such as by automatically making a credit card charge (block 342)”, claim 5 “The method of claim 1, further comprising electronically transmitting the real estate transaction document to a transaction facilitating entity”, claim 6 “The method of claim 5, wherein the transaction facilitating entity is selected from the group consisting of an attorney, a mortgage provider and a title provider”)
Broerman discloses maintains an audit trail of transaction stages for compliance purposes (8:38-48 “In addition, the electronic purchase contract 96 may utilize electronic contract tracking 99 to capture each change to the electronic purchase contract 96 to assist in negotiation and in any eventual interpretation of an executed contract should a dispute arise. Not only would versions of the electronic purchase contract 96 be tracked, but also which party proposed and accepted or rejected each version, along with the date. Advantageously, the tracking would include a pending status as to whether the receiving party has been notified and has reviewed the latest offer or counteroffer.”)
Broerman discloses a graphical user interface displaying real estate property listings with integrated analytics comprising comparable property data (8:1-7 “Having electronic communications with a sales database 30 provides an additional feature of allowing search for comparable sales by utilizing a comparables search 92 component accessible by the buyer 13 and the seller 12 to query the sales database 30. This capability allows the parties 12, 13 to ascertain a market price or price range for a property.”, 12:10-17 “Main routine 200 is shown having illustrations of associated services 216 beginning with a search comparable sales object 218 which allows an interactive search engine for the buyer 13 or the seller 12 to find comparable sales to the selected property to assist in determining a market price. This is typically a service requiring a real estate agent or a real estate appraiser and is generally not available to the public”) however Broerman does not explicitly disclose the displaying of market trends. Shao teaches the displaying of market trends (32:19-20 “Automatic Market Trend Information Generator and a Method for Generating and Providing Market Information”, 32:21-36 “In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, as shown in FIG. 1, the Processing Unit 130 further comprises a Market Information Generator 139. The Market Information Generator 139 uses data from different databases such as, for example and without limitation, the PID 110 and other Extrinsic Factor Databases 120 shown in FIG. 1. The types of information that real estate buyers or sellers like to see include but not limited to average mean price, median price, average days on market, days of inventory, number of closed transactions, number of new listings, and current inventory level. In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, the Market Information Generator 139 generates such data pertaining to a particular city, a particular county, a larger regional area, or nationally.”, 32:37-47 “FIG. 9 shows a flowchart of a method, implemented in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, for generating and providing above-mentioned data to one or more users using one or more systems such as, for example and without limitation, the Market Information Generator 139. As shown in FIG. 9, the method starts at step 910, the Market Information Generator 139 receives raw data of real estate transactions information from one or more databases such as, for example and without limitation, the PID 110 and Extrinsic Factor Database 120 shown in FIG. 1. Then, control is transferred to step 920.”, 32:48-65 “At step 920, the Market Information Generator 139 processes the raw data to compute one or more types of information that are commonly used for real estate such as, for example and without limitation, average mean selling price, median price, average days on market, days of inventory, number of closed transactions, number of new listings, or current inventory level. For example, the average selling price of the properties in Palo Alto, Calif. for a month can be computed by locating all the properties of a particular category, such as single family home, and finding the mean average selling price of those properties. A similar calculation can be done for all the properties in that month for all of Santa Clara County, or a larger metropolitan area. This raw data can be processed in real time while information is requested by a user, or periodically according to pre-determined regular periods such as, for example and without limitation, daily, weekly, monthly, or annually. Then, control is transferred to step 930.”, 32:66-33:3 “At step 930, the Market Information Generator 139 compares information pertaining to one city with information pertaining to another city, regions, states, or multiple of these areas to generate comparison information. Then control is transferred to step 940.”, 33:4-20 “At step 940, the comparison information may be shown in graphs or in tables, and these will be displayed to the users (i.e., real estate buyers or sellers) real-time over the web or software client interfaces, or via automatic email or other electronic messaging techniques. The comparison information may be shown in various time intervals, changeable by the user by selecting "last month", "last 6 months", "last year", "last 5 years", or other time intervals. All these graphs or tables are generated and shown to the users as they select the information they would like to see. Further, the comparison information may be sent to real estate buyers and sellers via email or other electronic messaging techniques on some regular basis. As such, users may select, using electronic devices, by areas (cities, regions, states) and by time ranges, and may view multiple geographical and temporal market information comparisons at the same time on a real-time basis or periodically.”, 33:21-32 “In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, the Market Information Generator 139 is integrated with the other features of the Processing Unit 130 and shown on the same interface such that the market information (or comparison information) can be readily available in a real-time user interface such that the data become very useful in helping the real estate buyers or sellers decide what the real estate market trends are. This kind of market information has been readily available for people evaluating different stocks to purchase, but has not been available at all for real estate markets, despite the usually much larger amount of investments that are usually involved in real estate purchases.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the real estate computer network of Broerman with the string-based systems and methods for searching real estate properties of Shao for the purpose of overcoming the challenge of inconsistent availability of data for prospective buyers because they cannot assess the suitability of an inadequately listed property very easily and must physically visit such properties to evaluate their suitability which presents a cost and efficiency challenge for the prospective buyers (Shao at 2:2-9).
Neither Broerman nor Shao explicitly disclose enable instant purchase execution based on predefined buyer criteria without traditional offer review cycles. Van Dyne teaches enable instant purchase execution based on predefined buyer criteria without traditional offer review (Abstract “A system includes a memory and a processor configured to receive at least one seller parameter including a minimum value associated with a sale of property and acceptable purchase conditions for instant sale of the property; maintain the at least one seller parameter confidential; generate a user interface for displaying a property listing that includes a timeline display, and for entering a binding offer with at least one buyer condition; receive a binding offer from a buyer that includes an offer price and the at least one buyer condition; evaluate the offer against the at least one seller parameter to determine an accepted status for offers meeting the minimum value and the acceptable purchase conditions for instant sale of the property; responsive to the offer having the accepted status, instantly binding the seller and buyer to complete the sale without further interaction; and communicate sale information to the buyer.”, 8:16-20 “This environment is unique, in that even offers that do not meet the current list price can be accepted by the system, and additionally can be automatically processed by the system to return nearly instantaneous acceptance and/or rejection.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the real estate computer network of Broerman with the string-based systems and methods for searching real estate properties of Shao with the method and apparatus for marketing and selling real property of Van Dyne for the purpose of supporting average buyers and sellers in the marketing and sales of real property (Van Dyne at 1:33-35).
As per claim 3
Broerman discloses wherein the data associated with one or more real estate properties is uploaded from a seller portal on a first computer device used by the seller, and wherein the system further comprises a transaction orchestration engine enforcing machine-controlled negotiation states (10:26-27 “a "LIST HOME" button 140 for potential listing sellers 12;”, 12:36-41 “The list sale property routine 202 referenced in the main routine 200 of FIG. 6 is shown in FIG. 7 as a flowchart sequence of operations performed by the seller 12 and the real estate computer network 10. First, the routine 202 receives property information from the seller 12 that is entered into a property record 102 (block 230).”, 14:30-46 “The negotiate sale routine 206 referenced in the main routine 200 of FIG. 6 is shown in FIG. 9 as a flowchart sequence of operations performed by the seller 12, the buyer 13 and the real estate computer network 10. This routine 206 shows several important aspects of the invention, providing electronic communication of various types of information, tracking a large number of actions, and overall facilitating the transaction through a critical phase that is often frustrating for buyers 13 and sellers 12, especially without use of agents. Although other iterative sequences of operations may be employed within the scope of the invention, the negotiate sale routine 206 shown does include the capability to iterate offers and counteroffers. Thus in block 330, a determination is made as to whether a pending seller counter offer exists, since this embodiment contemplates that a buyer 13 would initiate the first offer and this block 330 allows a convenient point for the routine 206 to iterate.”)
As per claim 4
Broerman discloses wherein real estate property listing is accessed by a buyer portal on a second computer device used by the buyer (7:28-44 “The seller custom profile 80 includes property information associated with a real estate property, and perhaps a plurality of such properties that are concurrently listed, although an illustrative case of one property is described herein. The brokerage system 22 communicates with the property database 20 to make this information available to buyer 13. The buyer 13 would access the property information via an electronic request to search or notify the buyer 84 of properties matching certain selected criteria to a search engine 86 which queries the property database 20. Advantageously, the search engine 86 may return a listing of appropriate properties so that the buyer 13 may select those for which detailed property information is required rather than providing all of the property information without further selection. This specific request would identify a specific property for which the buyer 13 is particularly interested.”)
Broerman and Shao do not explicitly disclose wherein the system is configured to execute a single-action click-to-buy binding transaction commit without agent intervention. Van Dyne teaches wherein the system is configured to execute a single-action click-to-buy binding transaction commit without agent intervention (Abstract “A system includes a memory and a processor configured to receive at least one seller parameter including a minimum value associated with a sale of property and acceptable purchase conditions for instant sale of the property; maintain the at least one seller parameter confidential; generate a user interface for displaying a property listing that includes a timeline display, and for entering a binding offer with at least one buyer condition; receive a binding offer from a buyer that includes an offer price and the at least one buyer condition; evaluate the offer against the at least one seller parameter to determine an accepted status for offers meeting the minimum value and the acceptable purchase conditions for instant sale of the property; responsive to the offer having the accepted status, instantly binding the seller and buyer to complete the sale without further interaction; and communicate sale information to the buyer.”, 8:16-20 “This environment is unique, in that even offers that do not meet the current list price can be accepted by the system, and additionally can be automatically processed by the system to return nearly instantaneous acceptance and/or rejection.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the real estate computer network of Broerman with the string-based systems and methods for searching real estate properties of Shao with the method and apparatus for marketing and selling real property of Van Dyne for the purpose of supporting average buyers and sellers in the marketing and sales of real property (Van Dyne at 1:33-35).
As per claim 5
Broerman discloses wherein the seller portal displays data of one or more properties that have been uploaded by the seller, and wherein the system is configured to automatically trigger downstream workflows comprising escrow, contracts, and financing (7:28-44 “The seller custom profile 80 includes property information associated with a real estate property, and perhaps a plurality of such properties that are concurrently listed, although an illustrative case of one property is described herein. The brokerage system 22 communicates with the property database 20 to make this information available to buyer 13. The buyer 13 would access the property information via an electronic request to search or notify the buyer 84 of properties matching certain selected criteria to a search engine 86 which queries the property database 20. Advantageously, the search engine 86 may return a listing of appropriate properties so that the buyer 13 may select those for which detailed property information is required rather than providing all of the property information without further selection. This specific request would identify a specific property for which the buyer 13 is particularly interested.”, 6:26-36, “Moreover, having electronic communication between the parties allows for another important aspect of facilitating real estate transaction, electronically communicating a real estate document to either the buyer 13 or the seller 12 to facilitate the transaction. In particular, the electronically communicating the real estate transaction document may include negotiations for a purchase contract for a selected real estate property entirely through electronic communications. Legal authorization for such entirely electronic communication may require recognition of some form of document certification such as a digital signature”, 8:59-65 “However, in some embodiments, especially where required by state and local regulation, a real estate transaction facilitator 24, or facilitating entity, may receive documentation from the real estate computer network 10 in order to complete the transaction. Such facilitators 24 may include, for instance, a lawyer, a mortgage provider, and/or a title provider”, 14:59-63 “Then, a determination is made as to whether earnest money was included in the offer that should be placed in an escrow account or other otherwise retained (block 340). If so, the escrow deposit is arranged, such as by automatically making a credit card charge (block 342)”)
As per claim 6
Broerman discloses wherein the buyer portal is associated with a subscription server that enables the buyer to access one or more real estate property and wherein the system enforces completion of the transaction without a human real estate agent intermediary (12:10-19, “Main routine 200 is shown having illustrations of associated services 216 beginning with a search comparable sales object 218 which allows an interactive search engine for the buyer 13 or the seller 12 to find comparable sales to the selected property to assist in determining a market price. This is typically a service requiring a real estate agent or a real estate appraiser and is generally not available to the public. Consequently, this feature may be deemed an enhanced service for which an additional fee is secured, such as through a credit card charge.”, 2:25-37 “Consistent with another aspect of the invention, negotiation during a transaction includes electronically generating an offer by revising an electronic form under the direction of the first party, either the seller or the buyer. This electronic form includes immutable contract terms and mutable contract terms. The buyer or seller making the offer is interactively assisted in completing the form. The revised electronic form is electronically transmitted to the other party. The second party may subsequently generate a counter offer by supervising changes to the mutable contract terms and by having the counter offer electronically transmitted to the first party. Each version of the electronic form is tracked as to status and content.”, 14:29-38 “The negotiate sale routine 206 referenced in the main routine 200 of FIG. 6 is shown in FIG. 9 as a flowchart sequence of operations performed by the seller 12, the buyer 13 and the real estate computer network 10. This routine 206 shows several important aspects of the invention, providing electronic communication of various types of information, tracking a large number of actions, and overall facilitating the transaction through a critical phase that is often frustrating for buyers 13 and sellers 12, especially without use of agents”)
As per claim 7
Broerman discloses wherein the buyer portal enables a real estate property searching function for the buyer to retrieve on or more real estate property listings. (7:28-44 “The seller custom profile 80 includes property information associated with a real estate property, and perhaps a plurality of such properties that are concurrently listed, although an illustrative case of one property is described herein. The brokerage system 22 communicates with the property database 20 to make this information available to buyer 13. The buyer 13 would access the property information via an electronic request to search or notify the buyer 84 of properties matching certain selected criteria to a search engine 86 which queries the property database 20. Advantageously, the search engine 86 may return a listing of appropriate properties so that the buyer 13 may select those for which detailed property information is required rather than providing all of the property information without further selection. This specific request would identify a specific property for which the buyer 13 is particularly interested.”)
As per claim 8
Broerman discloses wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to submit search parameters into the real estate property searching function related to one or more real estate property listings. (7:28-44 “The seller custom profile 80 includes property information associated with a real estate property, and perhaps a plurality of such properties that are concurrently listed, although an illustrative case of one property is described herein. The brokerage system 22 communicates with the property database 20 to make this information available to buyer 13. The buyer 13 would access the property information via an electronic request to search or notify the buyer 84 of properties matching certain selected criteria to a search engine 86 which queries the property database 20. Advantageously, the search engine 86 may return a listing of appropriate properties so that the buyer 13 may select those for which detailed property information is required rather than providing all of the property information without further selection. This specific request would identify a specific property for which the buyer 13 is particularly interested.”)
As per claim 9
Broerman discloses wherein the searching criteria comprises one or more of: address, location, parcel number, map view, and zoom area (“The search property database routine 204 referenced in the main routine 200 of FIG. 6 is shown in FIG. 8 as a flowchart sequence of operations performed by the buyer 13 and the real estate computer network 10. Routine 204 begins by the buyer 13 entering property requirements (block 280), such as price range, location, number of bedrooms, etc. Then, a search is performed of the property database 20 using the requirements, or criteria, provided, and any property records 102 matching the criteria are then displayed as a list (block 282).”)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broerman in view of Shao in view of Van Dyne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Levi (WIPO Publication WO 2016/060613 A1).
As per claim 2
Broerman discloses wherein the first user is a seller of the real estate property and the second user is a buyer of the real estate property (2:25-37 “Consistent with another aspect of the invention, negotiation during a transaction includes electronically generating an offer by revising an electronic form under the direction of the first party, either the seller or the buyer. This electronic form includes immutable contract terms and mutable contract terms. The buyer or seller making the offer is interactively assisted in completing the form. The revised electronic form is electronically transmitted to the other party. The second party may subsequently generate a counter offer by supervising changes to the mutable contract terms and by having the counter offer electronically transmitted to the first party. Each version of the electronic form is tracked as to status and content.”)
Neither Broerman nor Shao or Van Dyne explicitly disclose provide a secure communication channel between the first user and the second user for exchanging information related to the one or more real estate properties, wherein the secure communication channel includes encryption of messages transmitted between the first user and the second user. Levi teaches provide a secure communication channel between the first user and the second user for exchanging information related to the one or more real estate properties, wherein the secure communication channel includes encryption of messages transmitted between the first user and the second user (page 19 line 30 through page 20 line 2 “It is to be appreciated that the communication protocol between the negotiation engine 22 and the potential buyers and sellers may be based on secured communication protocol such as, but not limited to, Hypertext transfer protocol over within a connection encrypted by Transport Layer Security or its predecessor, Secure Sockets Layer (HTTPS).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the real estate computer network of Broerman with the string-based systems and methods for searching real estate properties of Shao with the method and apparatus for marketing and selling real property of Van Dyne further with the platform for facilitating and completing transactions of Levi for the purpose of facilitating negotiation as part of the transaction in a safe and secure environment (Levi at page 2 lines 12-14)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broerman in view of Shao in view of Van Dyne as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hammill et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0211972, hereinafter referred to as Hammill).
As per claim 10
Broerman in view of Shao in view of Van Dyne, while disclosing the limitations of claim 9, do not explicitly disclose wherein the seller portal enables the seller to submit a private invitation to a buyer for an offer on one or more real estate property listings. Hammill teaches wherein the seller portal enables the seller to submit a private invitation to a buyer for an offer on one or more real estate property listings (0079 “The net lease module 104 initiates, at step 210, the investor module 110. For example, the investor module 110 begins by being initiated by the net lease module 104. The investor module 110 connects to the investors 146. The investor module 110 identifies potential investors for investment into the reserve database 140. The investor module 110 sends a notification to the investors 146”, 0025 “In some cases, the net lease network 102 may handle equity structures, including partnership agreements, for amounts remunerated to various parties, and provide the generation or completion of documents that may be used for transferring ownership stakes among investors”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the real estate computer network of Broerman with the string-based systems and methods for searching real estate properties of Shao with the method and apparatus for marketing and selling real property of Van Dyne further with the residential net lease network with a 1031 exchange database of Hammill for the purpose of finding properties that the investor would be interested in purchasing or swapping (0003).
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broerman in view of Shao in view of Van Dyne in view of Hammill as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Graham et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0343442, hereinafter referred to as Graham).
As per claim 11
Broerman in combination with Shao, Van Dyne and Hammill while disclosing the limitations of claim 10 do not explicitly disclose wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to receive automatic recommendations related to the one or more real estate property listings. Graham teaches wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to receive automatic recommendations related to the one or more real estate property listings (0021 “The browser extension can be configured to automatically generate a personalized evaluation/recommendation based on detecting that the web browser is currently displaying a property listing. For example, in response to a browser being navigated to a URL or other network location endpoint, the browser extension may automatically obtain data associated with the URL and perform the analysis and recommendations, described herein”, 0080 “For example, higher gains and/or higher gains per a duration can increase a net positivity of the purchase recommendation. Accordingly in some cases, a highly positive factor, such as a highly positive projected gain may result in a positive purchase recommendation even when one or more other factors create a decrease in purchase recommendation. For example, if the possible gain is sufficiently large, the adaptive purchase analysis may generate a positive recommendation (e.g., Smart Buy), even if the associated property costs are greater than a set monthly budget”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine real estate computer network of Broerman with the string-based systems and methods for searching real estate properties of Shao with the method and apparatus for marketing and selling real property of Van Dyne with the residential net lease network with a 1031 exchange database of Hammill further with the web browser extension for generated graduated evaluation metrics based on displayed web content of Graham for the purpose of computing a real-time evaluation metric based on information obtained about the user, information about the listing and other resources that may not be available to the user while browsing the web (0003).
As per claim 12
Broerman discloses wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to submit an offer on at least one real estate property listing through a streamlined interface that bypasses traditional agent-mediated workflows (12:10-19, “Main routine 200 is shown having illustrations of associated services 216 beginning with a search comparable sales object 218 which allows an interactive search engine for the buyer 13 or the seller 12 to find comparable sales to the selected property to assist in determining a market price. This is typically a service requiring a real estate agent or a real estate appraiser and is generally not available to the public. Consequently, this feature may be deemed an enhanced service for which an additional fee is secured, such as through a credit card charge.”, 2:25-37 “Consistent with another aspect of the invention, negotiation during a transaction includes electronically generating an offer by revising an electronic form under the direction of the first party, either the seller or the buyer. This electronic form includes immutable contract terms and mutable contract terms. The buyer or seller making the offer is interactively assisted in completing the form. The revised electronic form is electronically transmitted to the other party. The second party may subsequently generate a counter offer by supervising changes to the mutable contract terms and by having the counter offer electronically transmitted to the first party. Each version of the electronic form is tracked as to status and content.”, 14:29-38 “The negotiate sale routine 206 referenced in the main routine 200 of FIG. 6 is shown in FIG. 9 as a flowchart sequence of operations performed by the seller 12, the buyer 13 and the real estate computer network 10. This routine 206 shows several important aspects of the invention, providing electronic communication of various types of information, tracking a large number of actions, and overall facilitating the transaction through a critical phase that is often frustrating for buyers 13 and sellers 12, especially without use of agents”)
As per claim 13
Broerman discloses wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to submit an initial offer on at least one real estate property listing (12:10-19, “Main routine 200 is shown having illustrations of associated services 216 beginning with a search comparable sales object 218 which allows an interactive search engine for the buyer 13 or the seller 12 to find comparable sales to the selected property to assist in determining a market price. This is typically a service requiring a real estate agent or a real estate appraiser and is generally not available to the public. Consequently, this feature may be deemed an enhanced service for which an additional fee is secured, such as through a credit card charge.”, 2:25-37 “Consistent with another aspect of the invention, negotiation during a transaction includes electronically generating an offer by revising an electronic form under the direction of the first party, either the seller or the buyer. This electronic form includes immutable contract terms and mutable contract terms. The buyer or seller making the offer is interactively assisted in completing the form. The revised electronic form is electronically transmitted to the other party. The second party may subsequently generate a counter offer by supervising changes to the mutable contract terms and by having the counter offer electronically transmitted to the first party. Each version of the electronic form is tracked as to status and content.”)
As per claim 14
Broerman discloses wherein the seller portal enables the seller to be notified and view the initial offer on at least one real estate property listing. (2:25-37 “Consistent with another aspect of the invention, negotiation during a transaction includes electronically generating an offer by revising an electronic form under the direction of the first party, either the seller or the buyer. This electronic form includes immutable contract terms and mutable contract terms. The buyer or seller making the offer is interactively assisted in completing the form. The revised electronic form is electronically transmitted to the other party. The second party may subsequently generate a counter offer by supervising changes to the mutable contract terms and by having the counter offer electronically transmitted to the first party. Each version of the electronic form is tracked as to status and content.”, 14:49-58 “If in block 330 there is no pending seller counter offer, then a determination is made as to whether the buyer 13 chooses to make an offer (block 332). If not, then routine 206 is done and returns (block 334). Otherwise, then the buyer 13 is afforded an opportunity to modify the electronic purchase contract 96 (block 336) and the version of the electronic purchase contract 96 is recorded (block 338). Thus, the version forwarded may contain annotations denoting who made entries or changes and on what date, for instance.”, 14:59-65 “Then, a determination is made as to whether earnest money was included in the offer that should be placed in an escrow account or other otherwise retained (block 340). If so, the escrow deposit is arranged, such as by automatically making a credit card charge (block 342). Afterward, or if escrow was not required in block 340, then the seller 12 is notified of the offer (block 344).”)
As per claim 15
Broerman discloses wherein the seller portal enables the seller to interact with the initial offer (2:25-37 “Consistent with another aspect of the invention, negotiation during a transaction includes electronically generating an offer by revising an electronic form under the direction of the first party, either the seller or the buyer. This electronic form includes immutable contract terms and mutable contract terms. The buyer or seller making the offer is interactively assisted in completing the form. The revised electronic form is electronically transmitted to the other party. The second party may subsequently generate a counter offer by supervising changes to the mutable contract terms and by having the counter offer electronically transmitted to the first party. Each version of the electronic form is tracked as to status and content.”)
As per claim 16
Broerman discloses wherein the interactions comprise at least one of: accepting the initial offer; submitting a counteroffer; and rejecting the offer. (8:42-48 “Not only would versions of the electronic purchase contract 96 be tracked, but also which party proposed and accepted or rejected each version, along with the date. Advantageously, the tracking would include a pending status as to whether the receiving party has been notified and has reviewed the latest offer or counteroffer.”)
As per claim 17
Broerman discloses wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to be notified and view the counteroffer from the seller on at least one real estate property listing. (6:48-53 “Parties to a negotiation of a purchase contract 96 would benefit from knowing whether the other party has received a document such as counteroffer. Moreover, the recipient of such a counteroffer would benefit from tracking all changes made to the purchase contract 96 during the negotiation.”, 8:42-48 “Not only would versions of the electronic purchase contract 96 be tracked, but also which party proposed and accepted or rejected each version, along with the date. Advantageously, the tracking would include a pending status as to whether the receiving party has been notified and has reviewed the latest offer or counteroffer.”)
As per claim 18
Broerman discloses wherein the buyer portal enables the buyer to interact with the counteroffer. (6:48-53 “Parties to a negotiation of a purchase contract 96 would benefit from knowing whether the other party has received a document such as counteroffer. Moreover, the recipient of such a counteroffer would benefit from tracking all changes made to the purchase contract 96 during the negotiation.”, 8:42-48 “Not only would versions of the electronic purchase contract 96 be tracked, but also which party proposed and accepted or rejected each version, along with the date. Advantageously, the tracking would include a pending status as to whether the receiving party has been notified and has reviewed the latest offer or counteroffer.”)
As per claim 19
Broerman discloses wherein the interactions comprise at least one of: accepting the counteroffer; submitting an additional counteroffer; and rejecting the counteroffer. (8:42-48 “Not only would versions of the electronic purchase contract 96 be tracked, but also which party proposed and accepted or rejected each version, along with the date. Advantageously, the tracking would include a pending status as to whether the receiving party has been notified and has reviewed the latest offer or counteroffer.”)
As per claim 20
Broerman discloses wherein the stored machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: execute and coordinate closing actions related to the real estate transaction including processing payments, generating contracts, and communicating with attorneys (6:26-36, “Moreover, having electronic communication between the parties allows for another important aspect of facilitating real estate transaction, electronically communicating a real estate document to either the buyer 13 or the seller 12 to facilitate the transaction. In particular, the electronically communicating the real estate transaction document may include negotiations for a purchase contract for a selected real estate property entirely through electronic communications. Legal authorization for such entirely electronic communication may require recognition of some form of document certification such as a digital signature”, 8:59-65 “However, in some embodiments, especially where required by state and local regulation, a real estate transaction facilitator 24, or facilitating entity, may receive documentation from the real estate computer network 10 in order to complete the transaction. Such facilitators 24 may include, for instance, a lawyer, a mortgage provider, and/or a title provider”, 14:59-63 “Then, a determination is made as to whether earnest money was included in the offer that should be placed in an escrow account or other otherwise retained (block 340). If so, the escrow deposit is arranged, such as by automatically making a credit card charge (block 342)”, claim 5 “The method of claim 1, further comprising electronically transmitting the real estate transaction document to a transaction facilitating entity”, claim 6 “The method of claim 5, wherein the transaction facilitating entity is selected from the group consisting of an attorney, a mortgage provider and a title provider”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lin et al. “Web-Based Services for Real Estate: Model and Implementation”, IT Pro published by IEEE Computer Society, January/February 2004, pp. 52-57, last modified on November 11, 2018 discloses various types of models for implementing real estate services on the Internet including those with a combination of a private membership structure in conjunction with public facing real estate information services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D NIGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5486. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 to 9:45 and 10:30 to 2:45.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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.
/JAMES D NIGH/ Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3699