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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 3-6 are pending in this instant application per 2nd preliminary amendment filed on 09/02/2025 by Applicant in Response to a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment mailed out on 07/03/2025. Claims 3 and 5 are two independent claims reciting system and method claims. Claims 4 and 6 are respective dependent claims. Said 2nd preliminary amendment of 09/02/2025 amended Claims 3-4 (previously added) as well as added new Claims 5-6, while original Claims 1-2 are shown as cancelled.
One/1 IDS has been filed by the Applicant so far on 06-12-2024 that has been considered and entered.
This Office Action is a non-final rejection on merits in response to the 2nd preliminary amendment filed by the Applicant on 02 SEPTEMBER 2025 for its original application of 12 JUNE 2024 that is titled: “System and Method for Collecting Asset or Real Estate Data, and Real-Time Matching of Sale Offers and Purchase Offers Possibility and Method for Collecting Asset or Real Estate Data, and Real-Time Matching of Sale Offers and Purchase Offers Possibility”.
Accordingly, pending Claims 3-6 are now being rejected herein.
Abstract Objections
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words (and Abstract has about 184 words in it). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP §608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3 recites characters that are inconsistent with prior descriptions. For example, but not limited to, the following sentences are inconsistent ---
“The processor (30) will notify the offer for sale in order of feasibility according to clauses A, B, C, C, E via wireless to At least one (41) second electronic device To know the feasibility and information of assets or real estate.”
“The offeror will choose to compare and choose to respond according to items A, B, C, C, E, one or a combination of at least one second electronic device (41). that can be selected from the input ………….”
In items (a) and (b) above, obviously “clauses A,B,C,C,E” and “items A,B,C,C,E” are wrongly labelled and should be properly listed as “A,B,C,D,E” instead for proper listing alphabetically.
(B) Furthermore, on Page 4, it recites the following sentences ---
(c) “By using the information in items A, B, C, D, E as part of decision making.”
(d) “……… selected from the information in item A, B, C, D, E One or more of them are part of decision making.”
In items (c) and (d) above, obviously “items A,B,C,D,E” and “item A,B,C,D,E” are inconsistent with listing of as “S,A,B,C,D” on top of Page 3 of 5 of the Specification, i.e., item “E” is Not described on top of Page 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
(C) Specification lists “processor” as “30” on pages 3 and 4, and it also lists Central Processing Unit as “30” on pages 2, 3 and 5. Examiner notes that one of these characterizations as “30” needs to be changed.
Appropriate correction is required.
(D) Specification has many omissions and errors, like missing punctuation marks, and while normally a Capitalized word indicates a period before it, but such is not the case. For example but not limited to, the para titled “Technical Field” displays these omissions and errors ---
{“Formerly trading assets or real estate Will check on the internet and make a call to inquire or go to see the property by yourself which has disadvantages is inconvenient Have to keep inspecting and following up looking for assets or real estate by yourself All the time, in addition to that, there is no need for buyers to enter, so all data is filtered and offered to buyers online and in real time. As a real-time match between offers and offers. By registering the transfer of ownership at the Department of Lands will be the last.”}
Examiner notes that these omissions and errors are present throughout the 5-page Specification; and which requires a revised and corrected new Specification to be submitted by the Applicant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner further requests the Applicant to correct similar objections in its whole Specification, as identified at least in items (A), (B), (C) and (D) above.
Claim Objections
Independent Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 48 ends that step “……… if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 60-69;” that is missing the percentage sign after 60-69 as has been done in system Claim 3. Examiner has read it to be “60-69%” below.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling and 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of method Claim 5:-
importing an input of a Sale-Offer Data, which is an asset or real estate offered for sale, by at least one of the First Electronic Devices, such as smartphones, computers, tablets, etc., wherein, the Sale-Offer Data can be inputted by such category as wherein,
the Sale-Offer Data comprises of multiple Sale-Offer Data such as a First Sale-Offer Data, a Second Sale-Offer Data, a Third Sale-Offer Data, and other Sale-Offer Data, etc.; and
importing Sale-Offer Data wirelessly to a Central Processing Unit;
importing an input of a Purchase-Offer Data, which is an asset or real estate desired for acquisition, by at least one of Second Electronic Devices such as smartphones, computers, tablets, etc., wherein, the Purchase-Offer Data can be inputted by such category as house, condominium, factory, commercial building, land, warehouse, townhouse, hotel, or dormitory, including location, sale offer price, size of real estate, and other data, wherein, the Purchase-Offer Data comprises of multiple Purchase-Offer Data such as a First Purchase-Offer Data, a Second Purchase-Offer Data, a Third Purchase-Offer Data, and other Purchase-Offer Data, etc.;
matching the First Sale-Offer Data, the Second Sale-Offer Data, the Third Sale-Offer Data, and the other Sale-Offer Data, with the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and the other Purchase-Offer Data that have a possible match or similarity between sale offers and purchase offers by the Central Processing Unit, wherein the Central Processing Unit will match identical or similar details from the following:
inputting of the Sale-Offer Data by such category as house, condominium, factory, commercial building, land, warehouse, townhouse, hotel, or dormitory, including location, sale offer price, size of real estate, and other data; and
inputting the Purchase-Offer Data by such category as house, condominium, factory, commercial building, land, warehouse, townhouse, hotel, or dormitory, including location, sale offer price, size of real estate, and other data;
processing and distinguishing the possibility between the Sale-Offer Data and the Purchase-Offer Data that are identical or similar by estimation as follows:
notifying the sale offers ….............………………………………………………………or
combination thereof from at least one of the Second Electronic Devices that are selected from an input of the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and the other Purchase-Offer Data, respectively, and the purchase offeror will send the purchase offer to the Central Processing Unit; sending the data to at least one of the First Electronic Devices by the Central Processing Unit that are selected from the input of the First Sale-Offer Data, the Second Sale-Offer Data, and the Third Sale-Offer Data, and the other Sale-Offer Data, respectively, after receiving Purchase-Offer Data from input of the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and the other Purchase-Offer Data, respectively, using data according to levels S, A, B, C, D as part of the decision-making process, wherein at least one of the First Electronic Devices is configured to perform the specified actions, such as:
receiving Purchase-Offer Data from the input of the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and other Purchase-Offer Data, respectively, by selecting from any one of the levels S, A,B, C, D, or combination thereof as part of the decision-making process; and
sending sale offer that can be selected from input of the First Sale-Offer Data, the Second Sale-Offer Data, and the Third Sale-Offer Data, and other Sale-Offer Data, respectively, to the Central Processing Unit;
forwarding data to at least one of the Second Electronic Devices by the Central Processing Unit, that can be selected from input of the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and other Purchase-Offer Data, respectively, after receiving the First Sale-Offer Data, the Second Sale-Offer Data, and the Third Sale-Offer Data, and other Sale-Offer Data, respectively, wherein, the First Sale-Offer Data, the Second Sale-Offer Data, and the Third Sale-Offer Data, and the other Sale-Offer Data, respectively, and the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and the other Purchase-Offer Data, communicate with each other via the First Electronic Device, the Central Processing Unit, and the Second Electronic Device, and confirm the matched offers, creating the first step of transaction.
--- the Specification does not demonstrate that Applicant has made an invention that
achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For example but not limited to, the filed Specification does Not recite any “Sale-Offer Data” Nor any “Purchase-Offer Data”; and the Specification does Not recite the word “Data” itself.
Dependent new method Claim 6 inherits the deficiencies in new method independent Claim 5 as described above; and amended system Claims 3-4 are rejected on the same basis as used for rejection of new method Claims 5-6.
Thus, Examiner requests the Applicant to provide in its reply to this Office Action where is the support recited for at least said phrases above (and similar phrases) in its disclosure/ Specification, and what is meant by each of these phrases having sequential numbering (1, 2, ….etc.) and how are these phrases different from each other, and what is the meaning of these phrases that is not described in the Specification.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b), or 35 USC 112, second paragraph (pre-AIA ) as follows ---
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 3-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Examiner notes the following rejections:-
Independent New Claim 5 recites limitations that are indefinite and/or unclear as to what they mean, especially highlighted phrases in bold below ---
considering of having the possibility at level S, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 90-100 %;
considering of having the possibility at level A, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 80-89 %;
considering of having the possibility at level B, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 70-79 %;
considering of having the possibility at level C, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 60-69 %; and
considering of having the possibility at level D, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 50-59 %;
Examiner asks the Applicant to explain how an offer that is identical can also vary in percentages between 80-89 % down to 50-59 %, as highlighted above in bold and underlined. Per a google search, “it is extremely rare for offers to be considered identical,” (see copy attached as Appendix); and thus, Examiner asks the Applicant for further clarification as to what is meany by “sale offer and purchase offer are identical” and how can any other percentage other than “S” or “90-100%” can be considered as “identical”?
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 3 and 5 are independent system and method claims respectively.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 09/02/2025 are shown as underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown.)
Exemplary Analysis
Claim 5: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The method claim recites the limitations of: collecting asset or real estate data and real-time matching of sale offers and purchase offers possibility, wherein the method further comprises: importing an input of a Sale-Offer Data, which is an asset or real estate offered for sale, wherein, the Sale-Offer Data can be inputted by category such as residential, commercial, land, etc., including location, sale offer price, size of real estate, and other data, wherein, the Sale-Offer Data comprises of multiple Sale-Offer Data such as a First Sale-Offer Data, a Second Sale-Offer Data, a Third Sale-Offer Data, and other Sale-Offer Data, etc.; importing an input of a Purchase-Offer Data, which is an asset or real estate desired for acquisition; wherein, the Purchase-Offer Data can be inputted by category such as residential, commercial, land, etc., including location, sale offer price, size of real estate, and other data, wherein, the Purchase-Offer Data comprises of multiple Purchase-Offer Data such as a First Purchase-Offer Data, a Second Purchase-Offer Data, a Third Purchase-Offer Data, and other Purchase-Offer Data, etc.; matching the First Sale-Offer Data, the Second Sale-Offer Data, the Third Sale-Offer Data, and the other Sale-Offer Data, with the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and the other Purchase-Offer Data that have a possible match or similarity between sale offers and purchase offers; inputting of the Sale-Offer Data by category such as residential, commercial, land, etc. including location, sale offer price, size of real estate, and other data; inputting the Purchase-Offer Data by category such residential, commercial, land, etc. including location, sale offer price, size of real estate, and other data; processing and distinguishing the possibility between the Sale-Offer Data and the Purchase-Offer Data that are identical or similar by estimation as follows: considering of having the possibility at level S, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 90-100 %; considering of having the possibility at level A, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 80-89 %; considering of having the possibility at level B, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 70-79 %; considering of having the possibility at level C, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 60-69 %; and considering of having the possibility at level D, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 50-59 %. In other words, the claim describes a method for gathering information on assets or real estate and matching possibilities between offers and offers in real time, and to make trading assets or real estate easy, fast and convenient, trading decisions can be made online and in real time (see Description of Embodiments in Specification). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES). Examiner notes that these steps are well-known and documented as automating a human activity in real estate transactions for decades, and that such automations already exist such as Realty Pilot’s Offer Management/ Offer Runway since August 2014, and ShowingTime’s Offer Manager since August 2021. Further, Examiner notes that calculating a percentage of an offer by a buyer to a seller’s listing price is a simple arithmetic calculation that can be done with pen and paper.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical
application. The claim recites additional elements of: importing Sale-Offer Data wirelessly to a Central Processing Unit; importing input data by at least one of the First Electronic Devices, such as smartphones, computers, tablets, etc.; importing an input of a Purchase-Offer Data, which is an asset or real estate desired for acquisition, by at least one of Second Electronic Devices such as smartphones, computers, tablets, etc., wherein the Purchase-Offer Data can be inputted by category such as residential, commercial, etc., including location, sale offer price, size of real estate, and other data; importing the Purchase-Offer Data wirelessly to a Central Processing Unit; receiving various Offer Data by the Central Processing Data; matching the various Offer Data that have a possible match or similarity between sale offers and purchase offers by the Central Processing Data, wherein the Central Processing Unit will match identical or similar details; notifying the sale offers in a sequence of possibilities according to levels S, A, B, C and D wirelessly to at least one of the Second Electronic Devices by the Central Processing Unit to report the possibility and asset or real estate data, wherein the purchase offeror will compare and choose any one of possibilities according to levels S, A, B, C and D, or combination thereof from at least one of the Second Electronic Devices that are selected from an input of the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and the other Purchase-Offer Data, respectively, and the purchase offeror will send the purchase offer to the Central Processing Unit; sending the data to at least one of the First Electronic Devices by the Central Processing Unit that are selected from the input of the First Sale-Offer Data, the Second Sale-Offer Data, and the Third Sale-Offer Data, and the other Sale-Offer Data, respectively, after receiving Purchase-Offer Data from input of the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and the other Purchase-Offer Data, respectively, using data according to levels S, A, B, C, D as part of the decision- making process, wherein at least one of the First Electronic Devices is configured to perform the specified actions, such as: receiving Purchase-Offer Data from the input of the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and other Purchase-Offer Data, respectively, by selecting from any one of the levels S, A, B, C, D, or combination thereof as part of the decision-making process; and sending sale offer that can be selected from input of the First Sale-Offer Data, the Second Sale-Offer Data, and the Third Sale-Offer Data, and other Sale-Offer Data, respectively, to the Central Processing Unit; forwarding data to at least one of the Second Electronic Devices by the Central Processing Unit, that can be selected from input of the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and other Purchase-Offer Data, respectively, after receiving the First Sale-Offer Data, the Second Sale-Offer Data, and the Third Sale-Offer Data, and other Sale-Offer Data, respectively, wherein, the First Sale-Offer Data, the Second Sale-Offer Data, and the Third Sale-Offer Data, and the other Sale-Offer Data, respectively, and the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and the other Purchase-Offer Data, communicate with each other via the First Electronic Device, the Central Processing Unit, and the Second Electronic Device, and confirm the matched offers, creating the first step of transaction. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The central processing unit and the electronic devices in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, to include 2nd preliminary claim amendments, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements of: providing an authorization and confirming said authorization, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these devices (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, pages [0002]-[0003] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“There will be multiple tender offer information (40). especially that is The first tender offer (401), the second tender offer (402), the third tender offer (403), and other tender offer information (404), etc. by at least one (41) second electronic device Tender offer data will be imported wirelessly to Central Processing Unit (30) processor (30) upon receipt of the first offer information (101), the second offer 30 information (102), the third offer information (103), and other offer information (104), including information First Tender Offer (401), Second Tender Offer (402), Third Tender Offer (403) and Other Tender Offer Information (404) Processor (30) will do the matching. First Offer Information (101), Second Offer Information (102), Third Offer Information (103) and Other Offer Information (104) vs. First Offer Information (401) Tender Offer Information Second Tender Offer (402), Third Tender Offer Information (403) and Other Tender Offer Information (404) with the nature of the offering and the potential offer between the offer and offer. buy matching or similar“} ---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, to include 2nd preliminary claim amendments, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent system Claim 3, which perform the steps similar to those of independent method Claim 5. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claim 6, further narrow the independent method Claim 5 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., enabling the First Electronic Device and the Second Electronic Device to send data to each other and communicate with each other to ask for more details, and price negotiation, creating the second step of transaction; enabling the Second Electronic Device to transfer deposit through the website operating system and application realized by the Central Processing Unit, creating the third step of transaction; enabling the First Electronic Device and the Second Electronic Device to send data to each other and communicate with each other to find an agency to inspect asset or real estate, creating the fourth step of transaction; ……, etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 5. Similarly, dependent system Claim 4 also further narrow its independent Claim 3, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. The Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1.) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2.) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3.) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4.) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over a combination of references as described below for each claim/ limitation.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 09/02/2025 are shown as underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown.)
Independent Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2019/ 0228484 filed by Sheppard et al. (hereinafter “Sheppard”) in view of Pub. No. US 2010/ 0174658 filed by Marlow et al. (hereinafter “Marlow”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
Examiner notes that all claims have been copied as recited by the Applicant to keep them readable and whole, even if the limitations within a claim that are not taught explicitly by the primary/previous reference (are noted in parentheses), but these limitations are noted explicitly as taught by a secondary/new reference whenever a secondary/new reference has been used.
Examiner notes that, for brevity in this rejection, the motivation statement has not been repeated herein every time a secondary reference has been used.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 09/02/2025 are shown as underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown.)
With respect to Claim 5, Sheppard teaches ---
5. (New) A method for collecting asset or real estate data and real-time matching of
sale offers and purchase offers possibility, wherein the method comprises:
(see at least: Sheppard Abstract and Summary of the Invention in paras [0012]-[0016]; and para [0069] about {“…… Real estate information 506 (FIG. 5) which may describe one or more real estate properties, geographic locations, and/or geographic areas may be obtained from real estate property listings and other associated real estate data which be provided one or more third party property listing databases such as Multiple Listing Services (MLS’s), Internet Data Exchange (IDX) property listings, and/or any other source of real estate information including For-Sale-By-Owner listings. Most property listing databases, such as MLS databases, contain not only residential listings but also other types of property listings including duplex listings, land listings, and commercial listings. …… In some embodiments, real estate listing information may be provided by widely used commercial listing databases such as LoopNet®. …”}; and para [0094] about {“…… The method 600 may be used to enable a remote user of the system 100 with a user device 400 to exchange real estate data and information describing incentives with the system 100. …”}: and para [0105] about {“…… Compared real estate information may include any data and information about the real estate properties, geographic locations, and/or geographic areas which client 102 will find useful. For example the comparison may include home prices, average home prices of the geographic areas, …,etc.”}; and para [0107] about {“In some embodiments, when the client 102 purchases real estate, the commissions may be split between the first or local member 101A, the remote or second member 101B, and with the service provider 101sp or administrators of the system 100. …… The sales in an area can be matched using the remote member 101B and the client 102 information stored in the real estate database 106 such as in member records 501 and client records 502. A real estate property sale may comprise an incentivization activity. ……which facilitated the registration of the purchasing indirect client 102B, if the real estate property was purchased by the indirect or second client 102B. …”}; and para [0120] for “purchase/s” and “sale data”; and para [0154] about {“The method 1100 may be used to provide dynamic real estate information, … which may match one or more preferences of a client 102 through their user device 400. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above)
Sheppard teaches ---
(importing an input of a Sale-Offer Data), which is an asset or real estate offered for sale, by at least one of the First Electronic Devices, such as smartphones, computers, tablets, etc., wherein, the Sale-Offer Data can be inputted by such category as house, condominium, factory, commercial building, land, warehouse, townhouse, hotel, or dormitory, including location, sale offer price, size of real estate, and other data, wherein,
the Sale-Offer Data comprises of multiple Sale-Offer Data such as a First Sale-Offer Data, a Second Sale-Offer Data, a Third Sale-Offer Data, and other Sale-Offer Data, etc.; and
(see at least: Sheppard ibidem and citations listed above; and paras [0046], [0052] & [0069] for “Multiple Listing Service(s) or (MLS’s)” property listings; and para [0040] about {“As used herein, the term “computer” refers to a machine, apparatus, or device that is capable of accepting and performing logic operations from software code. The term “application”, “software”, “software code” or “computer software” refers to any set of instructions operable to cause a computer to perform an operation. …”}; and para [0041] about {“……Non-limiting examples of electronic devices include: personal computers (PCs), workstations, laptops, tablet PCs including the iPad, cell phones including iOS phones made by Apple Inc., Android OS phones, Microsoft OS phones, Blackberry phones, digital music players, or any electronic device capable of running computer software and displaying information to a user, memory cards, other memory storage devices, digital cameras, external battery packs, external charging devices, and the like. …”}; and para [0042] about {“Some non-limiting examples of mobile devices include: cell phones, smartphones, tablet computers, laptop computers, wearable computers such as Apple Watch, other smartwatches, Fitbit, other wearable fitness trackers, Google Glasses, and the like. …”}; and para [0069] for “Internet Exchange Data (IDX) property listings”; and para [0057] about {“The processor 302 is a hardware device for executing software instructions. The processor 302 may be any custom made or commercially available processor, a central processing unit (CPU), an auxiliary processor among several processors associated with the server 300, a semiconductor-based microprocessor (in the form of a microchip or chip set), or generally any device for executing software instructions. When the server 300 is in operation, the processor 302 is configured to execute software stored within the memory 310, to communicate data to and from the memory 310, and to generally control operations of the server 300 pursuant to the software instructions. The I/O interfaces 304 may be used to receive user input from and/or for providing system output to one or more devices or components. …”}; and para [0188] about {“…… when the client 102 themselves purchase a property through a member 101 of the system 100.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above)
Examiner notes that multiple offers are offered on each real estate property listed for sale, like 3 to 4 offers per home based on data from National Association of Realtors, as described in the attached Appendix, which also describes which other factors influence the number of offers received.
Sheppard teaches as disclosed above, but it may be argued that it may not explicitly disclose about ‘importing … sales … data’. However, Marlow teaches it explicitly.
(see at least: Marlow Abstract and Summary of the Invention in paras [0060]-[0065]; and para [0122] for “The homeowner receives a contract on the home for $200,000 from a cooperating agent …… the homeowner accepts a contract offer.”; and paras [0202]-[0205] as in --- [0202] about {“FIG. 17 is flow chart of the user module for managing the customer information and property information in a preferred embodiment of the computer system for real estate transactions concerning the purchase or sale of real property encompassed by the present invention. The flow chart provides for: [0203] 1. Retrieve by entering name of customer and hit the "FIND" button which will import matching data from the Customer List. [0204] 2. Type MLS# or Physical address and hit the "GET PROPERTY DATA" button which is linked to HAR.COM and will import property info. [0205] 3. Type MLS# or Physical address and hit the "FIND" button which is will open a new window listing the properties saved in the Properties List tab that match the request. Additionally, there is a button labeled "LIST CALCULATIONS OF SELECTED RECORD" that will open a window illustrating saved calculations already performed on that specific property.”}; and para [0206] for “property sales price”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘importing … sales … data’)
It would have been obvious prior to the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ordinary person of skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sheppard with the teachings of Marlow. The motivation to combine these references would be to provide novel systems and methods that are able to provide quick response time between a seller and buyer of real estate and their agents (see para [0011] of Sheppard), and to provide efficient business method in real estate transactions that minimizes unnecessary additional costs and confusion to the consumer throughout the home buying, selling, and financing process (see para [0027] of Marlow).
Examiner notes that these steps are well-known and documented as automating a human activity in real estate transactions for decades, and that such automations already exist such as Realty Pilot’s Offer Management/ Offer Runway since August 2014, and ShowingTime’s Offer Manager since August 2021 as shown in attached Appendix. Please see attached herewith in Appendix a description of the well-known real estate listing and offer process.
Sheppard and Marlow teach ---
importing Sale-Offer Data wirelessly to a Central Processing Unit;
importing an input of a Purchase-Offer Data, which is an asset or real estate desired for acquisition, by at least one of Second Electronic Devices such as smartphones, computers, tablets, etc., wherein, the Purchase-Offer Data can be inputted by such category as house, condominium, factory, commercial building, land, warehouse, townhouse, hotel, or dormitory, including location, sale offer price, size of real estate, and other data, wherein, the Purchase-Offer Data comprises of multiple Purchase-Offer Data such as a First Purchase-Offer Data, a Second Purchase-Offer Data, a Third Purchase-Offer Data, and other Purchase-Offer Data, etc.;
(see at least: Sheppard ibidem and citations listed above; and para [0062] about {“The processor 402 is a hardware device for executing software instructions. The processor 402 can be any custom made or commercially available processor, a central processing unit (CPU), an auxiliary processor among several processors associated with the user device 400, a semiconductor-based microprocessor (in the form of a microchip or chip set), or generally any device for executing software instructions. When the user device 400 is in operation, the processor 402 is configured to execute software stored within the memory 410, to communicate data to and from the memory 410, and to generally control operations of the user device 400 pursuant to the software instructions. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above)
(see at least: Marlow ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘imported sales data’; and para [0102] for “homeowner receives a contract” and “the homeowner accepts a contract offer.”; and para [0104] for “A second real estate broker, real estate broker B, brings a prospective buyer 2 and writes a purchase contract for the asking price of the house …… The first real estate broker A finds the perfect home for the original homeowner 1 and writes a purchase contract for $250,000 …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above)
Examiner notes that multiple offers are offered on each real estate property listed for sale, like 3 to 4 offers per home based on data from National Association of Realtors, as described in the attached Appendix, which also describes which other factors influence the number of offers received.
Sheppard and Marlow teach ---
importing the Purchase-Offer Data wirelessly to the Central Processing Unit;
receiving the First Sale-Offer Data, the Second Sale-Offer Data, the Third Sale-Offer Data, and other Sale-Offer Data, and the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and other Purchase-Offer Data by the Central Processing Unit;
(see at least: Sheppard ibidem and citations listed above)
(see at least: Marlow ibidem and citations listed above)
Examiner notes that multiple offers are offered on each real estate property listed for sale, like 3 to 4 offers per home based on data from National Association of Realtors, as described in the attached Appendix, which also describes which other factors influence the number of offers received.
Sheppard and Marlow teach ---
matching the First Sale-Offer Data, the Second Sale-Offer Data, the Third Sale-Offer
Data, and the other Sale-Offer Data, with the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and the other Purchase-Offer Data that have a possible match or similarity between sale offers and purchase offers by the Central Processing Unit, wherein the Central Processing Unit will match identical or similar details from the following:
(see at least: Sheppard ibidem and citations listed above)
(see at least: Marlow ibidem and citations listed above)
Sheppard and Marlow teach ---
inputting of the Sale-Offer Data by such category as house, condominium, factory, commercial building, land, warehouse, townhouse, hotel, or dormitory, including location, sale offer price, size of real estate, and other data; and
inputting the Purchase-Offer Data by such category as house, condominium, factory, commercial building, land, warehouse, townhouse, hotel, or dormitory, including location, sale offer price, size of real estate, and other data;
(see at least: Sheppard ibidem and citations listed above)
(see at least: Marlow ibidem and citations listed above)
Sheppard and Marlow teach ---
processing and distinguishing the possibility between the Sale-Offer Data and the Purchase-Offer Data that are identical or similar by estimation as follows:
considering of having the possibility at level S, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 90-100 %;
considering of having the possibility at level A, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 80-89 %;
considering of having the possibility at level B, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 70-79 %;
considering of having the possibility at level C, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 60-69; and
considering of having the possibility at level D, if the sale offer and purchase offer are identical or similar to 50-59 %;
(see at least: Sheppard ibidem and citations listed above)
(see at least: Marlow ibidem and citations listed above)
Examiner notes that calculating a percentage of an offer by a buyer to a seller’s listing price is a simple arithmetic calculation that can be done with pen and paper.
Sheppard and Marlow teach ---
notifying the sale offers in a sequence of possibilities according to levels S, A, B, C and D wirelessly to at least one of the Second Electronic Devices by the Central Processing Unit to report the possibility and asset or real estate data, wherein the purchase offeror will compare and choose any one of possibilities according to levels S, A, B, C and D, or combination thereof from at least one of the Second Electronic Devices that are selected from an input of the First Purchase-Offer Data, the Second Purchase-Offer Data, the Third Purchase-Offer Data, and the other Purchase-Offer Da