DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to the application filed May 28th, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0069] recites the "database engine" as item 214 which is a typographical error and should recite item 204.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation beginning "an application server" recites "the application program" which lacks antecedent basis and should recite "an application program". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the limitation beginning "an application server" recites "the application program" which lacks antecedent basis and should recite "an application program";
The limitation beginning “a communication module” recites “the transmission” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “transmission”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim preamble recites “the steps of” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “the method comprising”;
The limitation beginning “transmitting, via a communication module” recites “the one or more clients” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “one or more clients”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a task module” in claims 1, 3, 9-10, 14, and 20;
“a transaction module” in claims 1, 10, and 20;
“the transactions module is in operable communications with the task module” in claims 8 & 19;
“a communication module” in claims 10 and 20;
“the communication module is in operable communication with the tasks module and the transactions module” in claim 12;
“an AI/ML engine” in claims 10 and 20;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 limitation “task module, transaction module, communication module, and AI/ML engine” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the claims fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For example, the claim recites “a task module in communication with the application program”, however the “application program” lacks adequate structure to perform the claimed function of monitoring and displaying information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-9
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (system) and dependent claims 2-9, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claim recites a system for providing a project management platform, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module for providing access to the application program through the user computing device; a tasks module in communication with the application program, the tasks module to monitor and display information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction; and a transactions module to monitor and display information associated with the transaction (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claim recites the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are providing a project management platform associated with a real estate management platform monitoring information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction and monitoring information associated with transactions, which is commercial interactions in the form of sales activity. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are providing a project management platform associated with a real estate management platform monitoring tasks and transactions, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claim recites the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are monitoring information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction and monitoring information associated with transactions, which is are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are monitoring tasks and transactions, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 3, 5, 8, and 9 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the prioritizing of one of more tasks, associating the transactions to the tasks, and parsing tasks to correspond to a priority level and a frequency. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as sales activity as well as mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 2 and 4-7 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module for providing access to the application program through the user computing device; display information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction; display information associated with the transaction” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a system for providing a project management platform, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module; a tasks module; a transaction module” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 3, 5, 8, and 9 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2 and 4-7 additionally recite “provides a dynamic display of the one or more tasks”, “displays one or more transactions between at least one buyer and at least one seller”, “illustrate one or more visual representations of the one or more tasks”, “color-coded to indicate a project status”, “color-coded to indicate the priority associated with the project” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “user interface module”, “client funnel interface”, “task process interface” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “a system for providing a project management platform, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module; a tasks module; a transaction module” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, system claims 1-9 recite “a system for providing a project management platform, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module; a tasks module; a transaction module”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0047-61 and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module for providing access to the application program through the user computing device; display information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction; display information associated with the transaction” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 3, 5, 8, and 9 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2 and 4-7 additionally recite “provides a dynamic display of the one or more tasks”, “displays one or more transactions between at least one buyer and at least one seller”, “illustrate one or more visual representations of the one or more tasks”, “color-coded to indicate a project status”, “color-coded to indicate the priority associated with the project” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “user interface module”, “client funnel interface”, “task process interface” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 10-19
Step 1: Independent claims 10 (system) and dependent claims 11-19, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 10 is directed to a system (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claim recites a system for providing an end-to-end project management platform, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module for providing access to the application program through the user computing device; a tasks module in communication with the application program, the tasks module to monitor and display information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction; and a transactions module to monitor and display information associated with the transaction to provide end-to-end management of the transaction; a communication module to enable the transmission of communications to one or more clients; and an AI/ML engine to provide automated communications and automated tasks status updates (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claim recites the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are providing a project management platform associated with a real estate management platform monitoring information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction and monitoring information associated with transactions to provide end-to-end management of the transaction, which is commercial interactions in the form of sales activity. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are providing a project management platform associated with a real estate management platform monitoring tasks and transactions, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claim recites the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are monitoring information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction and monitoring information associated with transactions, which is are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are monitoring tasks and transactions, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 14, 16, and 19 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the prioritizing of one of more tasks, associating the transactions to the tasks, and parsing tasks to correspond to a priority level and a frequency. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as sales activity as well as mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 11-13, 15, and 17-18 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module for providing access to the application program through the user computing device; display information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction; display information associated with the transaction; enable the transmission of communications to one or more clients; provide automated communications and automated tasks status updates” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a system for providing a project management platform, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module; a tasks module; a transaction module; a communication module; an AI/ML engine” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 14, 16, and 19 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 11-13 and 15-18 additionally recite “transmit one or more lead follow-ups, a plurality of lead tracking information, a plurality of notifications, and a plurality of task information”, “enable the automated transmission of the communications to the one or more clients”, “provides a dynamic display of the one or more tasks”, “displays one or more transactions between at least one buyer and at least one seller”, “illustrate one or more visual representations of the one or more tasks”, “color-coded to indicate a project status”, “color-coded to indicate the priority associated with the project” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “communications module”, “user interface module”, “client funnel interface”, “task process interface” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “a system for providing a project management platform, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module; a tasks module; a transaction module; a communication module; an AI/ML engine” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, system claims 10-19 recite “a system for providing a project management platform, the system comprising: at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network; an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module; a tasks module; a transaction module; a communication module; an AI/ML engine”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0047-61 and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module for providing access to the application program through the user computing device; display information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction; display information associated with the transaction; enable the transmission of communications to one or more clients; provide automated communications and automated tasks status updates” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 14, 16, and 19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 11-13 and 15-18 additionally recite “transmit one or more lead follow-ups, a plurality of lead tracking information, a plurality of notifications, and a plurality of task information”, “enable the automated transmission of the communications to the one or more clients”, “provides a dynamic display of the one or more tasks”, “displays one or more transactions between at least one buyer and at least one seller”, “illustrate one or more visual representations of the one or more tasks”, “color-coded to indicate a project status”, “color-coded to indicate the priority associated with the project” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “communications module”, “user interface module”, “client funnel interface”, “task process interface” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20
Step 1: Independent claim 20 (method) falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 20 is directed to a method (i.e. process).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claim recites a method for providing a project management platform, the method comprising the steps of: receiving, via a tasks module in communication with an application program, a plurality of task information to automatically determine a status associated with one or more tasks; displaying, via a task funnel interface, the one or more tasks using a color-coded indicator, the color-coded indicator to indicate the status of each of the one or more tasks; monitoring, via a transactions module, the status associated with a transaction, wherein the transaction is associated with each of the one or more tasks; and transmitting, via a communication module, a plurality of communication to the one or more clients, wherein an AI/ML engine automates the displaying, monitoring, and transmitting of information (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claim recites the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are providing a project management platform monitoring information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction and monitoring information associated with transactions, which is commercial interactions in the form of sales activity. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are providing a project management platform monitoring tasks and transactions, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claim recites the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are determining a status associated with one or more tasks; monitoring information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction and monitoring information associated with transactions, which is are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are monitoring tasks and transactions, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “receiving, via a tasks module in communication with an application program, a plurality of task information; displaying, via a task funnel interface, the one or more tasks using a color-coded indicator, the color-coded indicator to indicate the status of each of the one or more tasks; transmitting, via a communication module, a plurality of communication to the one or more clients, wherein an AI/ML engine automates the displaying, monitoring, and transmitting of information” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a tasks module in communication with an application program; a task funnel interface; a transactions module; a communication module; an AI/ML engine” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “a tasks module in communication with an application program; a task funnel interface; a transactions module; a communication module; an AI/ML engine” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claim 20 recites “a tasks module in communication with an application program; a task funnel interface; a transactions module; a communication module; an AI/ML engine”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0047-61 and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “receiving, via a tasks module in communication with an application program, a plurality of task information; displaying, via a task funnel interface, the one or more tasks using a color-coded indicator, the color-coded indicator to indicate the status of each of the one or more tasks; transmitting, via a communication module, a plurality of communication to the one or more clients, wherein an AI/ML engine automates the displaying, monitoring, and transmitting of information” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The additional limitations of the independent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kaddoura (U.S 2021/0019846 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Kaddoura discloses the following:
A system for providing a project management platform, the system comprising [see at least Paragraph 0028 for reference to the present technology generally relating to real-estate service management system; Paragraph 0028 for reference to the system being useful for buyers, agents, relators, vendors, and financial institutions involved in the transaction and maintenance of a real-estate property; Figure 12 and related text regarding the network connectivity of a real-estate service management system; Figure 22 and related text regarding the computer systemization of the real estate system]
at least one user computing device in operable connection with a user network [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to computing devices including network communication components that enable the mobiles devices to transmit and receive wireless signals using licensed, semi-licensed or unlicensed spectrum over a communications network; Figure 22 and related text regarding item 220 ‘Terminal devices’ interfacing with item 230 ‘networks’]
an application server in operable communication with the user network, the application server configured to host an application system for providing a real estate management platform, the application system having a user interface module for providing access to the application program through the user computing device [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to computing devices including network communication components that enable the mobiles devices to communicate with remote servers (e.g., hosting the applications and tools) to transmit and receive wireless signals using licensed, semi-licensed or unlicensed spectrum over a communications network; Paragraph 0046 for reference to applications and tolls including software that is useful for creating, building, and managing real estate serving managing systems; Paragraph 0058 for reference to the service platform rendering communications and recommendations on the graphical user interface to the user device; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 705 ‘user interface’; Figure 12 and related text regarding the network connectivity of a real-estate service management system; Figure 22 and related text regarding the computer systemization of the real estate system]
a tasks module in communication with the application program, the tasks module to monitor and display information related to one or more tasks associated with a transaction [see at least Paragraph 0049 for reference to the EZ task engine automatically compiling task procedures for a user; Paragraph 0056 for reference to the EZ task engine compiling a sequence of tasks and consolidating the procedures of the tasks for the user; Paragraph 0058 for reference to the service platform monitoring a user’s activity to associated data with that user and the user’s role; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 220 ‘task results’ and item 240 ‘task queries’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 345 ‘EZ Task Engine’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 510 ‘IDENTIFY USER ROLE AND ACTIVELY MONITOR USER INTEGRATED DATA WITHIN APPLICATION’]
a transactions module to monitor and display information associated with the transaction [see at least Paragraph 0037 for reference to real-estate service platform managing high volumes of transactions; Paragraph 0042 for reference to the integrated environment providing a customized user experience based on readily accessed information including live transactional data; Paragraph 0058 for reference to the service platform monitoring a user’s activity to associated data with that user and the user’s role; Paragraph 0070 for reference to property service platform obtaining transaction data; Paragraph 0086 for reference to graphical user interface figures displaying an example screen on a property service application pertaining to transactions associated with real estate property; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 127 ‘Transaction Management Module’; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 210 ‘Transaction Management’; Figure 13C and related text regarding the transaction tab item 1320; Figures 19A-E and related text regarding example screens on a property service application pertaining to transactions associated with real estate property]
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Kaddoura discloses the following:
wherein the user interface module provides a dynamic display of the one or more tasks [see at least Paragraph 0056 for reference to EZ tasks being accessible on the dashboard of the user; Paragraph 0057 for reference to the user-specific tasks being returned for review in the dashboard; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 430 ‘FORMAT TASKS ACCORDING TO USER ROLE AND ACCESS DEVICE’; Figure 8 and related text regarding item 835 ‘PRESENT COMPILATION OF ONE OR MORE USER-SPECIFIC TASKS’]
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Kaddoura discloses the following:
wherein the tasks module is configured to prioritize the one or more tasks and display the prioritized on or more tasks in a client funnel interface [see at least Paragraph 0049 for reference to task prioritization being based on the user role and intermittent processes tasked to agents (or other parties); Paragraph 0056 for reference to EZ tasks being accessible on the dashboard of the user; Paragraph 0057 for reference to the user-specific tasks being returned for review in the dashboard; Paragraph 0061 for reference to the prioritization engine analyzing requests sent to determine any user-specific task results from data maintained while monitoring the user’s activities; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 300 ‘Prioritization Engine’; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 430 ‘FORMAT TASKS ACCORDING TO USER ROLE AND ACCESS DEVICE’; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 715 ‘Prioritization Engine’; Figure 8 and related text regarding item 835 ‘PRESENT COMPILATION OF ONE OR MORE USER-SPECIFIC TASKS’]
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Kaddoura discloses the following:
wherein the client funnel interface displays one or more transactions between at least one buyer and at least one seller [see at least Paragraph 0086 for reference to graphical user interface figures displaying an example screen on a property service application pertaining to transactions associated with real estate property; Figure 13C and related text regarding the transaction tab item 1320; Figures 19A-E and related text regarding example screens on a property service application pertaining to transactions associated with real estate property]
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, Kaddoura discloses the following:
wherein the tasks module is in operable communication with a tasks process interface to illustrate one or more visual representations of t