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 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.
The claims recite a computer program product (non-transitory), a method, and a system; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of performing a real estate property search for a user so the user can be provided with a listed ranking of properties that satisfy or partially satisfy entered search criteria.
Using claim 19 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 1, 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving real estate data for a plurality of properties from one or more third-party sources of data;
processing the real estate data including at least one of normalizing the real estate data and tagging the real estate data to create a property profile for each listing included in the real estate data;
receiving search criteria from a user, the search criteria including and characterized by primary criteria and secondary criteria;
processing the search criteria including (i) weighting at least a portion of each of the primary criteria and the secondary criteria, and (ii) assigning a buffer threshold to at least one criterion of one or more of the primary criteria and the secondary criteria;
analyzing, using a model, the processed real estate data by comparing the property profiles for one or more properties to the processed search criteria;
scoring the one or more properties based on at least (i) a match between processed real estate data and the processed search criteria, the match at least in part accounting for the buffer threshold of the at least one criterion, and (ii) weighting of the processed search criteria;
ranking the one or more properties based on the scoring; and
displaying at least a portion of the ranking of the one or more properties
The above limitations are reciting a process by which real estate properties are being searched for based on search criteria. Searching for real estate properties that match search criteria from a user is a commercial practice that exists in the real estate industry. Real estate agents are known to provide search results to those looking to buy a house, and the search is based on search criteria from a user. Online systems also allow users to enter desired search criteria that is used to provide search results to the user. Obtaining data about real estate properties and performing a search based on search criteria is a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea.
For claim 1, the additional elements of the claim are the recited computer program product and the use of an interface.
For claim 19, the only additional element claimed is the recitation to the interface.
For claim 20, the additional elements are the recitation to a data network, a plurality of processors coupled to the network, and a remote computing resource coupled to the network that has a processor and memory.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device(s) with a processor and memory connected to each other via a network, and that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device(s) with a processor and memory and using a generically recited user interface to perform steps that define the abstract idea (data display). The claimed data network, plurality of processors and the remote computing resource is claiming generic computers connected by a network such as the Internet that are being used to accomplish the functions/steps that defines the abstract idea. The claimed interface is reciting something that all computer have so that data input and data output can occur and is not claiming anything more than an instruction for one to use a computer as a tool to execute the steps that defines the abstract idea. For claim 1, the combination of the recitation to a computer program product and the use of the interface is interpreted as an instruction for one to practice the abstract idea using generic computer technology. Claim 19 recites the use of the interface as the only additional element and is considered to be an instruction for one to practice the abstract idea using generic computer technology as was stated for claims 1 and 20. The claimed computer program product and the use of an interface, and/or the data network, plurality of processors, and the remote computing resource of claim 20 that are coupled to the data network is claiming the use of networked computers to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. The additional elements do not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web) and that has an interface of some kind, all generically recited. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device(s) with a processor and memory connected to each other via a network, and that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device(s) with a processor and memory and using a generically recited user interface to perform steps that define the abstract idea (data display). The claimed data network, plurality of processors and the remote computing resource is claiming generic computers connected by a network such as the Internet that are being used to accomplish the functions/steps that defines the abstract idea. The claimed interface is reciting something that all computer have so that data input and data output can occur and is not claiming anything more than an instruction for one to use a computer as a tool to execute the steps that defines the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary. The combination of the additional elements is claiming computer implementation for the abstract idea which does not result in the claim reciting significantly more at step 2B.
Claims 1, 19, 20, do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 2-7, the claims are reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was found for claim 1. Reciting more about the properties in a buffer being scored, displaying listings having a parameter outside of the search criteria…., having the search criteria that includes location and that is based on user input that includes weightings and interactions are elements that are just defining more about the abstract idea. No further additional elements have been claimed beyond those already addressed for claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 8, the receiving of the search criteria from prompts is considered to be reciting more about the abstract idea of claim 1. This is asking or soliciting a user for input regarding search criteria to be used in the real estate property search. This is claiming part of the abstract idea. The claimed interface is an additional element and has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1, to which applicant is referred. The interface is a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea and is interpreted as an instruction for one to use computers as a tool to execute the abstract idea. This does not render the claim eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For claims 9, 10, the claimed manner by which the scoring is performed by assigning full value, particle value, or no points and summing the values is claiming more about the abstract idea. Assigning points to certain criteria and summing up the scores (a weighted summation) is part of the abstract idea. The same is noted for the claimed display of the score for one or more properties. That is also part of the abstract idea and can be accomplished by a person showing another person the scores written on paper, such as a report. No further additional elements have been claimed beyond those already addressed for claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 11-17, the claims are reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was found for claim 1. Reciting more about the displaying of information related to real estate data for the properties, providing a personalized view ranking of the properties that includes identification of search criteria and a description related to the ranking, updating the real estate data on a periodic basis, prioritizing sources of data, and claiming that the real estate data includes an image or school data or neighborhood information are all elements that serve to further define the abstract idea of claim 1. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 18, the claim recites that the model is a machine learning model. For claim 1 the model was considered to be part of the abstract idea because it is broadly recited and a model in a broad sense is a framework or a template on how to do something. Claiming that the model is a machine learning model is now considered to be an additional element; however, this is a general link to the field of machine leaning and is not providing for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(h) in this regard. The use of machine learning can be interpreted as being an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), or can be interpreted as a link to a particular technological environment which is the field of machine learning, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The machine learning is recited at a high level of generality and does not claim anything about machine learning that would arguably provide for an improvement to technology or to machine learning in general. For this reason the claim is not found to be integrated into a practical application and is not found to be reciting significantly more. The claim is not eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-15, 17-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen (5754850) in view of Megill et al. (20210349955).
For claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 19, 20, Janssen discloses a computer system 200 and method of performing a property search that uses a buffer threshold for search criteria so that real estate properties that are close matches will also be returned as a search result. Janssen discloses that the system can be implemented online and by using wireless modems to provide for data updates to the system regarding properties. See column 4, lines 1-11 and column 3, lines7-10. This satisfies the claimed limitation regarding a data network and a processor 200 connected to the network.
Janssen discloses that real estate property information is received, which is the act of receiving the property data that is stored in the database of the computer 200. The act of receiving data is not defined or modified by reciting who the data is received from, so the limitation of the third party data source is not positively recited in the claim scope and is satisfied by Janssen. Janssen teaches in column 6, lines 25-29 that the user is provided with a listing of the sources of data, which indicates that the property data is from a third party source.
Janssen discloses that search criteria is received from a user, see column 2, lines 21-26; column 5, lines 3-42. A user is disclosed as being able to select search criteria that is to be used in the property search. This includes criteria such as location, price, number of bedrooms, number of baths, etc.. Disclosed is that the processing of the search criteria includes weighting a portion of the criteria and assigning a buffer threshold. This is done by a user reacting to prompts (claim 8) that are icons on the screen (the claimed interface) and that is used to assist the user is customization of the weighting for the search criteria (addressed below).
The buffer threshold is satisfied by Janssen teaching that the search allows for non-exact matches to be returned. See column 3, lines 42-58; column 8, lines17-27. The instant specification in paragraph 074 discloses that the buffer allow for search results to be returned that are not exact matches, with the example being given of a search criteria price range of 450-550k, where the system will provide properties that are just outside of the search criteria range, such as those that are just over or under the price range desired. The same is disclosed for other criteria such as number of beds or bathrooms. This is the same concept disclosed by Janssen. Janssen allows for non-exact matches to be returned so that properties that are just outside of search criteria can still be considered as a viable option, just as the paragraph 074 of the specification teaches is the purpose of the threshold buffer.
The weighting of the search criteria is satisfied by a user in Janssen being able to assign more priority to a search criteria such that it is weighted differently than other criteria. A user is disclosed as being able to adjust the features that are to be given more points during scoring, which is a way to weight the scoring of the search criteria. See column 3, lines 42-58; column 5, lines4-33; column 5, line 58 to column 6, line 10. A user can prioritize and place more importance on certain search criteria than others by making them primary search criteria that is weighted more heavily with more points being given for primary search criteria than for non-primary search criteria. This satisfies what is claimed.
Janssen teaches that the profiles for properties is compared to the search criteria, see column 5, lines 53-56. The search criteria received from the user is compared to property data so that it can be determined if the criteria is satisfied or is a close match. This satisfies what is claimed. The executable code of Janssen that includes the methodology to perform the property search is considered to satisfy the claimed model.
Janssen teaches that the properties are scored, which is done by assigning points based on whether or not the search criteria is a primary or on-primary search criteria (a weighting) and that is based on the buffer threshold. Full points are given for exact matches with search criteria where non-exact matches receive partial points, see column 3, lines 42-58; column 5, lines4-33; column 5, line 58 to column 6, line 10. The scoring is based on the points given if the criteria is an exact match, is based on the buffer threshold as claimed (that gives less points to buffers that are satisfied), and is based on the weighting (primary versus non-primary search criteria).
The properties of the search result are disclosed as being ranked, see column 2, lines 54-57. Disclosed is that the properties are ranked in the order of the item with the highest points.
The rankings are displayed to the user as claimed, which is the presentation of the ranked search results for the user to view. This includes displaying the scores (claim 10).
For claims 1, 19, 20, not disclosed by Janssen is that the property data is normalized.
For claim 20, also not disclosed is that the system includes a plurality of processors connected to the network.
Megill teaches a system and method for processing real estate data so that users can view the data using their client devices, see figure 1. The system normalizes received property data and is connected to a data network that allows users to access the system via user computers.
With respect to data normalization, Janssen teaches that property data can be received via wireless models and the use of an online service. Megill discloses a system and method for processing real estate data so that users can view the data. Disclosed in paragraph 002, 011. Disclosed is that property data is received and the property data is processed by normalization. Data normalization is something well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Janssen with the ability to normalize the received property data so that it can be organized in the database efficiently and so that the data is standardized. It is known in the art to normalize received real estate property data and providing such to Janssen would provide the predictable result that data normalization provides for.
For claim 20, in addition to the above, the computer 200 of Janssen satisfies the claimed remote computing resource. With respect to the plurality of processors, this is claiming more than one computer such as a user computer connected by the data network. The system of Janssen can be used online and by using wireless modems, as was addressed previously. Janssen is teaching that the invention can be performed using a data network as opposed to using hard drives or CDs to store data. Megill teaches a real estate system that allows for access by client devices 150 (plurality of processors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Janssen with a connection to the Internet so that they system was able to be accessed online by a plurality of processors (client devices) as taught by Megill. Janssen teaches that the system can be used online and by using wireless modems for data receipt, and when one is implementing the system of Janssen online, it involves other processing devices connected to the data network (Internet). Modifying Janssen so that the computer can be accessed by a plurality of processors as claimed, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For claim 6, the claimed user interaction is satisfied by the user interacting with the system of Janssen to indicate the importance of the weighting. The system receives input from the use and is able to deduce the importance as claimed.
For claim 7, Janssen teaches that location is a primary search criteria. See column 6, lines 31-39. This satisfies what is claimed.
For claim 9, Janssen discloses that full points are given for an exact match, partial points can be given for a partial match, and teaches that no points are given if there is no match. See column 2, lines 33-colmn 3, line 4. Also see column 3, lines 42-58 where the claimed limitation is disclosed.
For claims 12-14, the claimed personalized view of the ranking is satisfied by Janssen teaching that the user can adjust the search criteria used and how many points they are given. This results in a personalized view of the ranking because it is based on the personalized settings of the user. For claims 13, 14, the data that is merely being displayed and that is not functional in nature, does not receive distinguishing weight. The display of the property rankings in Janssen and the ability of the user to view property data satisfies what is claimed.
For claim 15, see column 2, line 16-21 that discloses the periodic updating of the real estate database. This satisfies what is claimed. The term automatic does not preclude human involve in the updating because of the use of comprising that allows for additional elements to be present. See COLLEGENET, INC., v. APPLYYOURSELF, INC. (04-1202,-1222,-1251), dated 2005.
For claim 17, not disclosed is that the real estate data includes a photo or school data, etc.. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that real estate property data is known to include images and school information as well as neighborhood information as just a few examples. While not taught by Janssen, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Janssen with property data that includes images or information about should or neighborhoods. This is well known in the real estate art and would yield the predictable result of providing the user with the property information they want to know about.
For claim 18, not disclosed by Janssen is that the model of Janssen is a machine learning model. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that machine learning exists and is used to process data in various ways. The claim does not recite anything about machine learning or how it is being used. The claim simply calls the model a machine learning model. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Janssen with updated technology by utilizing machine learning for performing the property search. This would provide for an update to the system of Janssen that is utilizing machine learning to provide the advantages that machine learning provides to the system of Janssen.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen (5754850) in view of Megill et al. (20210349955) and further in view of Thomas et al. (20150317701).
For claim 16, not disclosed by Janssen is that property data can be prioritized based on the source for the data. Thomas teaches a system and method for obtaining real estate data and teaches that the sources of the data can be prioritized and teaches that the data itself can be prioritized from the different sources. See paragraphs 014, 100, and 160. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Janssen with the ability to prioritize the real estate data based on the source of the data so that the sources with the most accurate or reliable data can be given priority over other sources. This would yield the predictable result of allowing the system of Janssen to prioritize the data sources for use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626