DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-12 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Preliminarily, it is noted that Applicant’s claim amendments have overcome the art rejections. Reasons for allowance are provided below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues, “Claims 1, 5, and 9 cause the computer to perform a novel and non-obvious series of steps to provide a tangible, useful result — prediction of future real estate activities — that was previously unattainable. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 5, and 9 recite a specialized machine that performs a function that was previously unattainable. Thus, claims 1, 5, and 9 are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.” (Page 9 of Applicant’s response) The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Aside from a general recitation of the various additional elements and general links to technology presented in the claims, a human user can perform all of the operations of the claims, thereby presenting a mental process. Also explained in the rejection is that the claims incorporate the abstract ideas of organizing human activity and of a mathematical concept. Applicant does not provide any persuasive evidence that anything beyond general purpose processing elements are needed to perform the recited claim operations. The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Additionally, Applicant is further reminded of the decision rendered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in parent application no. 14/857,110 on July 28, 2021. In this decision, the PTAB additionally looked toward Applicant’s Specification to characterize the invention as a whole when evaluating each step of the Subject Matter Eligibility test. Relevant excerpts from pages 10-17 of this decision specifically discuss Applicant’s Specification and these excerpts are reproduced in the rejection below.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to generating an industrial momentum index (abstract) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claim falls within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Process (claims 1-4), Apparatus (claims 5-8), Article of Manufacture (claims 9-12)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claim recites the following:
[Claims 1, 5, 9] A method/plurality of operations comprising:
retrieving a plurality of factors from a real estate database, in which each of the plurality of factors affect a momentum of a real estate market;
applying a statistical model to determine a set of factors that provide a greatest influence on an industrial momentum index (IMI), in which the set of factors comprises:
a vacancy rate;
an occupied space rate;
a rental rate; and
a construction rate; and
inputting the set of factors into a formula in order to generate the IMI, in which the IMI is used to predict future real estate activities, wherein predicting the future real estate activities comprises generating an IMI forecast model utilizing a gross domestic product (GDP) variable, selected as a function of consumer consumption, industrial production, and net exports to avoid multicollinearity with other correlated variables, a net percentage of banks tightening standards for commercial and industrial loans variable, a total industrial employment variable, the reciprocal of an interest rate variable, thereby linearizing the relationship for non-negative values, and a recession dummy variable.
It is noted that a database may simply be a collection of data.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can gather the plurality of factors, apply a statistical model, and input the factors into a formula (as claimed). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to generating an industrial momentum index, which is used to predict future real estate activities (as explained in the Abstract), which (under the broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of marketing transactions and/or sales (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
The momentum index is calculated based on a formula and other evaluated statistical data (e.g., as seen in claims 1, 5, and 9), which presents examples of mathematical concepts.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 includes a processor to generally implement the recited operations.
Claim 5 includes an electronic device comprising: a processor; and a memory operatively coupled to the memory storing a plurality of executable instructions, wherein execution of the plurality of executable instructions causes the processor to perform the recited plurality of operations.
Claim 9 includes a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of executable instructions, wherein execution of the plurality of executable instructions by a processor causes performance of the recited plurality of operations.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 4, 8-22).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claim recites the following:
[Claims 2, 6, 10] wherein the statistical model utilizes ordinary least squares to estimate progression of the set of factors.
[Claims 3, 7, 11] wherein the statistical model is generated based on future projections of the set of factors.
[Claims 4, 8, 12] wherein the IMI forecast model is based at least in part on a Best Linear Unbiased Estimation.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims above.
It is noted that a database may simply be a collection of data.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can gather the plurality of factors, apply a statistical model, and input the factors into a formula (as claimed). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to generating an industrial momentum index, which is used to predict future real estate activities (as explained in the Abstract), which (under the broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of marketing transactions and/or sales (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
The momentum index is calculated based on a formula and other evaluated statistical data (e.g., as seen in claims 1, 5, and 9), which presents examples of mathematical concepts. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 present additional details of the models, further incorporating mathematical concepts.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims incorporate the additional elements of the respective independent claim from which each depends.
Claims 1-4 include a processor to generally implement the recited operations.
Claims 5-8 include an electronic device comprising: a processor; and a memory operatively coupled to the memory storing a plurality of executable instructions, wherein execution of the plurality of executable instructions causes the processor to perform the recited plurality of operations.
Claims 9-12 include a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of executable instructions, wherein execution of the plurality of executable instructions by a processor causes performance of the recited plurality of operations.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 4, 8-22).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
NOTE: Applicant is further reminded of the decision rendered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in parent application no. 14/857,110 on July 28, 2021. In this decision, the PTAB additionally looked toward Applicant’s Specification to characterize the invention as a whole when evaluating each step of the Subject Matter Eligibility test. For example, the following excerpts from pages 10-17 of this decision specifically discuss Applicant’s Specification:
PNG
media_image1.png
250
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
621
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
176
469
media_image3.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image4.png
63
453
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
291
444
media_image5.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image6.png
81
439
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The PTAB’s statement that “[t]he 12+ pages of specification only spell out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of managing commercial real estate activities by deriving and testing factors for predicting real estate activity under different scenarios” (PTAB Decision: p. 14) most succinctly summarizes the main points made by the Examiner in the § 101 rejection of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed over the prior art of record. The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Kagarlis et al. (US 2008/0168004) in view of Hecht (US 2006/0100950) in view of Ng (Ng, Eric C.Y. "Forecasting US Recessions with Various Risk Factors and Dynamic Probit Models." Journal of Macroeconomics 34 (2012) 112-125.) in view of Lown et al. (Lown, Cara S. et al. "Listening to Loan Officers: The Impact of Commercial Credit Standards on Lending and Output." FRBNY Economic Policy Review. July 2000.) most closely address the various concepts recited in each of the independent claims, as seen in the last art rejections of claims 1-12 in the Office action dated December 12, 2025. Additionally, Mun (US 2010/0205042) discloses that perfect multicollinearity between two variables occurs when a perfect linear relationship exists between the two variables (Mun: ¶ 150) and a correlation with an absolute value greater than 0.75 indicates severe multicollinearity (Mun: ¶ 151). Hecht et al. (US 2014/0172669) discusses the relevance of an inverse interest rate curve in the area of mortgages (Hecht: ¶¶ 46, 65, 72).
Alexander et al. (US 2001/0047280) explains:
[0029] By way of example, and not as a limitation, the following relationships are modeled as linear. The available mortgage size is inversely proportional to the credit rating and is inversely proportional to the interest rate, with each first constant m being negative. The available mortgage size is directly proportional to each of the user's income, the downpayment amount, and the user's assets, with each first constant m being positive. The number of mortgage products available is directly proportional to each of the user's income and the downpayment amount and inversely proportional to the number of late payments. The credit rating is also inversely proportional to the number of late payments. The mortgage processing time is inversely proportional to the downpayment percentage. The time to move personal property and the dollar amount of claims associated with moving personal property are each directly proportional to the level of user involvement, each increasing with increased user involvement.
However, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s invention would not have, in light of the teachings of the aforementioned references, found it obvious to create the claimed invention with the level of detail and specific manner of integration of operations as they are presented in each of the independent claims, including (but not limited to) the newly amended-in limitations “selected as a function of consumer consumption, industrial production, and net exports to avoid multicollinearity with other correlated variables” and “the reciprocal of an interest rate, thereby linearizing the relationship for non-negative values…” in the context of the independent claims as a whole. Therefore, claims 1-12 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A