Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a mental process and a method of organizing human activity Because the claim recites a method that includes receiving a request to determine the appraisal value of the target property; determining the target property, wherein the target property comprises a target specification comprising a plurality of variables; determining a plurality of comparable properties based on the target property; parsing the target specification to identify the plurality of variables based on the target specification and parsing specifications corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties to identify specification values for each of the plurality of variables; determining, for each variable of the plurality of variables, a grouping of specification ranges based on the specification values corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties; generating a plurality of visual representations based on the comparable properties and the target property, wherein each of the visual representations comprises a comparison of the target property and the plurality of comparable properties for a respective variable of the plurality of variables and graphically represents the grouping of specification ranges for the respective variable based on the specification values of the plurality of comparable properties; and computing the appraisal value of the target property by determining an average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties, determining an adjustment recommendation for at least one variable of the plurality of variables based on a respective visual representation of the plurality of visual representations, and applying the adjustment recommendation to the average sale price to generate the appraisal value of the target property. This is a mental process and a method of managing commercial interactions between people (e.g., by determining an appraisal value of a target property). The mere nominal recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, an appraisal engine comprising processor-executable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to determine an appraisal value of a target property; one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to execute the processor-executable instructions, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, direct the computing apparatus; and a graphical user interface (GUI) does not take the claim out of the mental processes or method of organizing human activity groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of receiving; determining; determining; determining; parsing; determining; generating; and computing in a computer environment. The claimed computer-readable storage medium, appraisal engine; processors; and GUI are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of receiving; determining; determining; determining; parsing; determining; generating; and computing in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 2 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining determining an adjusted average sale price and applying the adjustment recommendation to the adjusted average sale price. Claim 3 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining computing the appraisal value of the target property based on the plurality of visual representations, and applying a received value adjustment. Claims 4-5 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining the generating of the visual representations. Claim 6 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining filtering a subset of properties to determine the comparable properties based on the variables. Thus, claims 2-6 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 2-6 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 7 recites a mental process and a method of organizing human activity because the claim recites a method that includes receiving a request to determine the appraisal value of the target property; determining a target property, wherein the target property comprises a target specification comprising a plurality of variables; determining a plurality of comparable properties based on the target property; parsing the target specification to identify a plurality of variables based on the target specification and parsing specifications corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties to identify specification values for each of the plurality of variables; determining for each variable of the plurality of variables, a grouping of specification ranges based on the specification values corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties; ; generating a plurality of visual representations based on the comparable properties and the target property, wherein each of the visual representations comprises a comparison of the target property and the plurality of comparable properties for a respective variable of the plurality of variables and graphically represents the grouping of specification ranges for the respective variable based on the specification values of the plurality of comparable properties; and computing an appraisal value of the target property by determining an average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties, determining an adjustment recommendation for at least one variable of the plurality of variables based on a respective visual representation of the plurality of visual representations, and applying the adjustment recommendation to the average sale price to generate the appraisal value of the target property. This is a mental process and a method of managing commercial interactions between people (e.g., by determining an appraisal value of a target property). The mere nominal recitation of a graphical user interface (GUI), an appraisal engine comprising processor-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium does not take the claim out of the mental processes or method of organizing human activity groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of receiving; determining; determining; parsing; determining; generating; and computing in a computer environment. The claimed GUI and appraisal engine are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of receiving; determining; determining; parsing; determining; generating; and computing in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 8-14 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 7 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 8 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 7 by e.g., further defining determining an adjusted average sale price for comparable properties and applying the adjustment recommendation to the adjusted average sale price. Claim 9 and 13 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 7 by e.g., further defining receiving and applying a value adjustment to the average sale price. Claims 10-11 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 7 by e.g., further defining the generating of the visual representations. Claim 12 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 7 by e.g., further defining filtering a subset of properties to determine the comparable properties based on the variables. Claim 13 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 7 by e.g., further defining determining and filtering a subset of properties within the listing of properties comprising temporal proximity to the appraisal value of the target property; and filtering the subset of properties. Claim 14 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 7 by e.g., further defining that the visual representations correspond to histograms visually representing a variable for each of the comparable properties. Thus, claims 8-14 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 7 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 8-14 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 15 recites a mental process and a method of organizing human activity because the claim recites a method that includes receiving a request to determine an appraisal value of a target property; determining the appraisal value of the target property, wherein the target property comprises a target specification comprising a plurality of variables; determining a plurality of comparable properties based on the target property; parsing the target specification to identify the plurality of variables based on the target specification and parsing specifications corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties to identify specification values for each of the plurality of variables; determining for each variable of the plurality of variables, a grouping of specification ranges based on the specification values corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties; generating a plurality of visual representations based on the comparable properties and the target property, wherein each of the visual representations comprises a comparison of the target property and the plurality of comparable properties for a respective variable of the plurality of variables and graphically represents the grouping of specification ranges for the respective variable based on the specification values of the plurality of comparable properties; and computing the appraisal value of the target property by determining an average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties, determining an adjustment recommendation for at least one variable of the plurality of variables based on a respective visual representation of the plurality of visual representations, and applying the adjustment recommendation to the average sale price to generate the appraisal value of the target property. This is a mental process and a method of managing commercial interactions between people (e.g., by determining an appraisal value of a target property). The mere nominal recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable storage media, one or more processors, an appraisal engine configured to determine an appraisal value of the target property, and a graphical user interface (GUI), does not take the claim out of the mental processes or method of organizing human activity groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of determining; determining; parsing; generating; and computing in a computer environment. The claimed computer-readable storage medium, appraisal engine; and processors are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of determining; determining; parsing; generating; and computing in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 16-20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 16 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 15 by e.g., further defining determining an adjusted average sale price for comparable properties and a temporal adjustment and applying the adjustment recommendation to the adjusted average sale price. Claims 17-18 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 15 by e.g., further defining a request to a property database for the plurality of specifications corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties and the generating of the visual representations. Claim 19 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 15 by e.g., further defining applying a value adjustment to the average sale price to generate the appraisal value of the target property. Claim 20 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 15 by e.g., further defining filtering a subset of properties to determine the comparable properties based on the variables. Thus, claims 16-20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 15 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 16-20 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
I. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicklick US 20160125481 A1 in view of Waxman US 20220148045 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Sicklick teaches a computing apparatus comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; an appraisal engine comprising processor-executable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to determine an appraisal value of a target property; and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to execute the processor-executable instructions, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, direct the computing apparatus, to at least ([0163] Embodiments herein may be provided as one or more computer program products, which may include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions, which may be used to program a computer (or other electronic devices) to perform a process. As used herein, the term “machine-readable medium” refers to any medium, a plurality of the same, or a combination of different media, which participate in providing data (e.g., instructions, data structures) which may be read by a computer, a processor or a like device. Such a medium may take many forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile media, and transmission media. Non-volatile media include, for example, optical or magnetic disks and other persistent memory. Volatile media include dynamic random access memory, which typically constitutes the main memory of the computer. Transmission media include coaxial cables, copper wire and fiber optics, including the wires that comprise a system bus coupled to the processor. Transmission media may include or convey acoustic waves, light waves and electromagnetic emissions, such as those generated during radio frequency (RF) and infrared (IR) data communications):
receive, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a request to determine the appraisal value of the target property ([0044] A user interface (UI) may be implemented, at least in part, on a device 300, and preferably uses the device's display(s) and input/interaction mechanism(s). [0055] A UI preferably provides a user such as a lender with a way to request an appraisal of a real property. A user may interact with the appraisal scheduling application(s) 118 to request such an appraisal);
determine the target property, wherein the target property comprises a target specification comprising a plurality of variables (e.g., FIG. 5A 1922 Mason St; FIG. 16A 100 Main St.);
determine a plurality of comparable properties based on the target property ([0110] FIGS. 10A-10H show screens 1000, 1002, 1004, 1006, 1008, 1010, 1012, presented on the UI that show information about comparable properties. Screen portion 1002 (FIG. 10B) shows a listing of comparable properties (“comps”) selected, e.g., based on similarity to the property being appraised. Preferably the comps are initially selected by the backend 102 and the appraiser is able to use the UI to adjust the values and/or select different or additional comps (e.g., using “Add Comp” button in 1010, FIG. 10G));
parse the target specification to identity the plurality of variables based on the target specification and parse specifications corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties to identify specification values for each of the plurality of variables; determine, for each variable of the plurality of variables, a grouping of specification ranges based on the specification values corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties; graphically represents the grouping of specification ranges for the respective variable based on the specification values of the plurality of comparable properties; generate a plurality of visual representations based on the comparable properties and the target property, wherein each of the visual representations comprises a comparison of the target property and the plurality of comparable properties for a respective variable of the plurality of variables (FIGS. 6A-6H; e.g., FIG. 6C: range of 11-17 for the variable MONTHLY SALES VOLUME; range of 32-40 for the variable AVG DAYS ON MARKET; FIGS. 10A – 10H; FIGS. 16A – 16D: e.g., price, price/sq. ft.); and
compute the appraisal value of the target property by determining an adjustment recommendation for at least one variable of the plurality of variables based on a respective visual representation of the plurality of visual representations ([0119] An implementation may display one or more value drivers on the UI (1106 FIG. 11D). Value drivers define a hierarchy of factors that impact value most and value adjustments for the property being appraised. Value drivers/factors may include location factors, house-specific factors, and view factors. The user/appraiser may use the value drivers to justify or explain an appraisal value. [0120] In some embodiments hereof the appraisal system may determine and provide a list of features that may be used to adjust the value of the property being appraised. For example, a value for a swimming pool, garden, fence, etc. may be provided via the UI. The appraiser may then use the list to adjust (e.g., add value to or subtract value from) the appraisal value. The system may track appraisers' use or non-use of these line item adjustments, and may use this information to adjust the line item values for future use. [0133] With reference to FIGS. 14A-14D, the UI presents the appraiser with screen 1400 (for convenience here described as screens 1402, 1406, and 1408). The top portion 1402 of screen 1400 (FIG. 14B) provides information about how to use the regression analysis and gives the user a regression summary. The middle portion 1404 of screen 1400 (FIG. 14C) provides details of a multivariate analysis of comps with respect to various variables (e.g., “Gross living area,” “Boat,” “Actual Age,” “View,” “Pool,” “Site Area,” “Bedrooms,” “Location,” “Leasehold/Fee simple,” “Total rooms above grade,” “Total bathrooms above grade,” “Basement square footage,” “Rooms below grade,” “Heating/Cooling,” “Garage/carport,” and “Porch/patio/deck”). The UI (on screen portion 1404) also provides the appraiser with an indication of the impact of the various variables on the value. For example, in the example shown in FIGS. 14A-14D, six of the variables (“Gross living area,” “Boat,” “Actual Age,” “View,” “Pool,” “Site Area,”) are shown to have a high impact (with a P-value of less than 0.001), whereas the other variables are considered “not impactful.”)
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Waxman teaches determining an average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties, and applying the adjustment recommendation to the average sale price to generate the appraisal value of the target property ([0017] identity when the average price must be adjusted and also suggest how much that adjustment should be. [0028] In this way, properties of cells within the smart electronic spreadsheet 201 may be dynamically modified utilizing formulas and deviation thresholds in order to highlight, flag, and/or provide indicators for property appraisal metrics that have certain levels of deviations, such as a low deviation (e.g., thus, a mere average for such property appraisal metrics of comparable properties can be taken for assigning an appraisal value to the subject property 202), high deviation (e.g., thus, manual or automated
adjustment should be implemented and taken into account), etc. At 110, the method 100 ends. [0032] At 308, the values of the one or more additional property appraisal metrics may be averaged to compute an average comparable property appraisal metric (e.g., an average of about 1,017 square feet based upon an average of 950 square feet for the first comparable property 404, 1,152 square feet for the second comparable property 406, and 950 square feet for the third comparable property 408). The value of 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric, relating to the average of the basement square footage property appraisal metrics of the comparable properties, may be compared with the value of 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402, such as by using statistical analysis, to compute a suggested adjustment value to apply to an appraisal value for the subject property 402. The suggested adjustment value takes into account any deviation between the 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric of the comparable properties and the 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402. [0033] the suggested adjustment value may be automatically applied to the subject property 402. In an example, the suggested adjustment value may correspond to a dollar amount to apply to the appraisal value for the subject property 402 in order to take into account a deviation between the 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric of the comparable properties and the 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402. In this way, various messages may be provided to a user, such as an appraiser, regarding how to more accurately and precisely appraise the subject property 402).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of determining an average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties, and applying the adjustment recommendation to the average sale price to generate the appraisal value of the target property as taught in Waxman with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the system “to output a more accurate and/or objective final appraisal value for the subject property (Waxman [0006]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Sicklick further teaches receive, from a client device, a value adjustment for at least one variable of the plurality of variables based on a respective visual representation ([0110] FIGS. 10A-10H show screens 1000, 1002, 1004, 1006, 1008, 1010, 1012, presented on the UI that show information about comparable properties. Screen portion 1002 (FIG. 10B) shows a listing of comparable properties (“comps”) selected, e.g., based on similarity to the property being appraised. Preferably the comps are initially selected by the backend 102 and the appraiser is able to use the UI to adjust the
values and/or select different or additional comps (e.g., using “Add Comp” button in 1010, FIG. 10G). [0113] In some exemplary embodiments hereof a user (e.g., appraiser) may adjust the value of comparable properties (e.g., to normalize these values). Thus, as shown in FIG. 10B, the user may select a comparable property and make adjustments. [0117] FIGS. 11A-11D show screens 1100, 1102, 1104,
1106, presented on the UI that show information about the property value. The user may modify some of the information. Factors that may affect value are preferably highlighted (e.g., by an up arrow for a desirable feature that may increase the property's value and a down arrow for an undesirable feature that may decrease the property's value)).
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Waxman teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions to compute the appraisal value of the target property, when executed by the one or more processors, further direct the computing apparatus to: apply the value adjustment to the average sale price to generate the appraisal value of the target property ([0020] automatically apply suggested
adjustment values to compensate for deviations, and/or notify an appraiser if results of analyzing the data and/or the data itself requires additional review and/or analysis by the appraiser) (see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Sicklick further discloses wherein the processor-executable instructions to generate the plurality of visual representations, when executed by the one or more processors, further direct the computing apparatus to: determine a first variable of the plurality of variables; determine a specification value corresponding to the first variable for each of the plurality of comparable properties; and generate a first visual representation based on the specifications of the plurality of comparable properties, wherein the first visual representation indicates a number of comparable properties comprising similar specifications for the first variable (FIGS. 10A – 10H, 12G, and 16A – 16D).
Regarding Claim 7, Sicklick discloses a method for estimating an appraisal value of a target property based on a plurality of comparable properties, the method comprising: receiving, by an appraisal engine via a graphical user interface (GUI), a request to determine the appraisal value of the target property ([0044] A user interface (UI) may be implemented, at least in part, on a device 300, and preferably uses the device's display(s) and input/interaction mechanism(s). [0055] A UI preferably provides a user such as a lender with a way to request an appraisal of a real property. A user may interact with the appraisal scheduling application(s) 118 to request such an appraisal);
determining, by the appraisal engine, the target property, wherein the target property comprises a target specification comprising a plurality of variables (e.g., FIG. 5A 1922 Mason St; FIG. 16A 100 Main St.);
determining, by the appraisal engine comprising processor-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the plurality of comparable properties based on the target property ([0110] FIGS. 10A-10H show screens 1000, 1002, 1004, 1006, 1008, 1010, 1012, presented on the UI that show information about comparable properties. Screen portion 1002 (FIG. 10B) shows a listing of comparable properties (“comps”) selected, e.g., based on similarity to the property being appraised. Preferably the comps are initially selected by the backend 102 and the appraiser is able to use the UI to adjust the values and/or select different or additional comps (e.g., using “Add Comp” button in 1010, FIG. 10G); [0163] Embodiments herein may be provided as one or more computer program products, which may include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions, which may be used to program a computer (or other electronic devices) to perform a process. As used herein, the term “machine-readable medium” refers to any medium, a plurality of the same, or a combination of different media, which participate in providing data (e.g., instructions, data structures) which may be read by a computer, a processor or a like device. Such a medium may take many forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile media, and transmission media. Non-volatile media include, for example, optical or magnetic disks and other persistent memory. Volatile media include dynamic random access memory, which typically constitutes the main memory of the computer. Transmission media include coaxial cables, copper wire and fiber optics, including the wires that comprise a system bus coupled to the processor. Transmission media may include or convey acoustic waves, light waves and electromagnetic emissions, such as those generated during radio frequency (RF) and infrared (IR) data communications);
parsing, by the appraisal engine, the target specification to identity the plurality of variables based on the target specification and parsing, by the appraisal engine, specifications corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties to identify specification values for each of the plurality of variables; determining, by the appraisal engine, for each variable of the plurality of variables, a grouping of specification ranges based on the specification values corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties; generating, by the appraisal engine, a plurality of visual representations based on the comparable properties and the target property, wherein each of the visual representations comprises a comparison of the target property and the plurality of comparable properties for a respective variable of the plurality of variables and graphically represents the grouping of specification ranges for the respective variable based on the specification values of the plurality of comparable properties (FIGS. 6A-6H; e.g., FIG. 6C: range of 11-17 for the variable MONTHLY SALES VOLUME; range of 32-40 for the variable AVG DAYS ON MARKET; FIGS. 10A – 10H; FIGS. 16A – 16D: e.g., price, price/sq. ft.);
computing, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value of the target property by determining an adjustment recommendation for at least one variable of the plurality of variables based on a respective visual representation of the plurality of visual representations ([0119] An implementation may display one or more value drivers on the UI (1106 FIG. 11D). Value drivers define a hierarchy of factors that impact value most and value adjustments for the property being appraised. Value drivers/factors may include location factors, house-specific factors, and view factors. The user/appraiser may use the value drivers to justify or explain an appraisal value. [0120] In some embodiments hereof the appraisal system may determine and provide a list of features that may be used to adjust the value of the property being appraised. For example, a value for a swimming pool, garden, fence, etc. may be provided via the UI. The appraiser may then use the list to adjust (e.g., add value to or subtract value from) the appraisal value. The system may track appraisers' use or non-use of these line item
adjustments, and may use this information to adjust the line item values for future use. [0133] With reference to FIGS. 14A-14D, the UI presents the appraiser with screen 1400 (for convenience here described as screens 1402, 1406, and 1408). The top portion 1402 of screen 1400 (FIG. 14B) provides information about how to use the regression analysis and gives the user a regression summary. The middle portion 1404 of screen 1400 (FIG. 14C) provides details of a multivariate analysis of comps with respect to various variables (e.g., “Gross living area,” “Boat,” “Actual Age,” “View,” “Pool,” “Site Area,” “Bedrooms,” “Location,” “Leasehold/Fee simple,” “Total rooms above grade,” “Total bathrooms above grade,” “Basement square footage,” “Rooms below grade,” “Heating/Cooling,” “Garage/carport,” and “Porch/patio/deck”). The UI (on screen portion 1404) also provides the appraiser with an indication of the impact of the various variables on the value. For example, in the example shown in FIGS. 14A-14D, six of the variables (“Gross living area,” “Boat,” “Actual Age,” “View,” “Pool,” “Site Area,”) are shown to have a high impact (with a P-value of less than 0.001), whereas the other variables are considered “not impactful.”)
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Waxman teaches determining an average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties, and applying the adjustment recommendation to the average sale price to generate the appraisal value of the target property ([0017] identity when the average price must be adjusted and also suggest how much that adjustment should be. [0028] In this way, properties of cells within the smart electronic spreadsheet 201 may be dynamically modified utilizing formulas and deviation thresholds in order to highlight, flag, and/or provide indicators for property appraisal metrics that have certain levels of deviations, such as a low deviation (e.g., thus, a mere average for such property appraisal metrics of comparable properties can be taken for assigning an appraisal value to the subject property 202), high deviation (e.g., thus, manual or automated adjustment
should be implemented and taken into account), etc. At 110, the method 100 ends. [0032] At 308, the values of the one or more additional property appraisal metrics may be averaged to compute an average comparable property appraisal metric (e.g., an average of about 1,017 square feet based upon an average of 950 square feet for the first comparable property 404, 1,152 square feet for the second comparable property 406, and 950 square feet for the third comparable property 408). The value of 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric, relating to the average of the basement square footage property appraisal metrics of the comparable properties, may be compared with the value of 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402, such as by using statistical analysis, to compute a suggested adjustment value to apply to an appraisal value for the subject property 402. The suggested adjustment value takes into account any deviation between the 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric of the comparable properties and the 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402. [0033] the suggested adjustment value may be automatically applied to the subject property 402. In an example, the suggested adjustment value may correspond to a dollar amount to apply to the appraisal value for the subject property 402 in order to take into account a deviation between the 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric of the comparable properties and the 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402. In this way, various messages may be provided to a user, such as an appraiser, regarding how to more accurately and precisely appraise the subject property 402).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of determining an average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties, and applying the adjustment recommendation to the average sale price to generate the appraisal value of the target property as taught in Waxman with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the system “to output a more accurate and/or objective final appraisal value for the subject property (Waxman [0006]).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Waxman teaches wherein the method further comprises receiving from a client device by the appraisal engine, a value adjustment recommendation for at least one variable of the plurality of variables based on a respective visual representation; and applying, by the appraisal engine, the value adjustment to the average sale price to generate, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value of the target property ([0032] At 308, the values of the one or more additional property appraisal metrics may be averaged to compute an average comparable property appraisal metric (e.g., an average of about 1,017 square feet based upon an average of 950 square feet for the first comparable property 404, 1,152 square feet for the second comparable property 406, and 950 square feet for the third comparable property 408). The value of 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric, relating to the average of the basement square footage property appraisal metrics of the comparable properties, may be compared with the value of 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402, such as by using statistical analysis, to compute a suggested adjustment value to apply to an appraisal value for the subject property 402. The suggested adjustment value takes into account any deviation between the 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric of the comparable properties and the 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage
property appraisal metric of the subject property 402. [0033] the suggested adjustment value may correspond to a dollar amount to apply to the appraisal value for the subject property 402 in order to take into account a deviation between the 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property
appraisal metric of the comparable properties and the 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402. In this way, various messages may be provided to a user, such as an appraiser, regarding how to more accurately and precisely appraise the subject property 402).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of generating, by the appraisal engine, an adjustment recommendation for each of the plurality of variables based on the plurality of visual representations; and determining, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value of the target property based on at least one adjustment recommendation for a respective variable of the plurality of variables as taught in Waxman with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the system “to more accurately and precisely appraise the subject property” (Waxman [0033]).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Sicklick further discloses wherein generating, by the appraisal engine, the plurality of visual representations comprises: determining, by the appraisal engine, a first variable of the plurality of variables; determining, by the appraisal engine, a specification value corresponding to the first variable for each of the plurality of comparable properties; and generating, by the appraisal engine, a first visual representation based on the specifications of the plurality of comparable properties, wherein the first visual representation indicates a number of comparable properties comprising similar specifications for the first variable (FIGS. 10A – 10H, 12G, and 16A – 16D).
Regarding Claim 15, Sicklick teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage media comprising processor-executable instructions configured to cause one or more processors to ([0163] Embodiments herein may be provided as one or more computer program products, which may include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions, which may be used to program a computer (or other electronic devices) to perform a process. As used herein, the term “machine-readable medium” refers to any medium, a plurality of the same, or a combination of different media, which participate in providing data (e.g., instructions, data structures) which may be read by a computer, a processor or a like device. Such a medium may take many forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile media, and transmission media. Non-volatile media include, for example, optical or magnetic disks and other persistent memory. Volatile media include dynamic random access memory, which typically constitutes the main memory of the computer. Transmission media include coaxial cables, copper wire and fiber optics, including the wires that comprise a system bus coupled to the processor. Transmission media may include or convey acoustic waves, light waves and electromagnetic emissions, such as those generated during radio frequency (RF) and infrared (IR) data communications):
receive, by an appraisal engine via a graphical user interface (GUI), a request to determine the appraisal value of the target property ([0044] A user interface (UI) may be implemented, at least in part, on a device 300, and preferably uses the device's display(s) and input/interaction mechanism(s). [0055] A UI preferably provides a user such as a lender with a way to request an appraisal of a real property. A user may interact with the appraisal scheduling application(s) 118 to request such an appraisal);
determine, by the appraisal engine configured to determine the appraisal value of the
target property, the target property, wherein the target property comprises a target specification comprising a plurality of variables (e.g., FIG. 5A 1922 Mason St; FIG. 16A 100 Main St.);
determine, by the appraisal engine, a plurality of comparable properties based on the target property ([0110] FIGS. 10A-10H show screens 1000, 1002, 1004, 1006, 1008, 1010, 1012, presented on the UI that show information about comparable properties. Screen portion 1002 (FIG. 10B) shows a listing of comparable properties (“comps”) selected, e.g., based on similarity to the property being appraised. Preferably the comps are initially selected by the backend 102 and the appraiser is able to use the UI to adjust the values and/or select different or additional comps (e.g., using “Add Comp” button in 1010, FIG. 10G));
parse, by the appraisal engine, the target specification to identity the plurality of variables based on the target specification and parse, by the appraisal engine, specifications corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties to identify specification values for each of the plurality of variables; generate, by the appraisal engine, a plurality of visual representations based on the comparable properties and the target property, wherein each of the visual representations comprises a comparison of the target property and the plurality of comparable properties for a respective variable of the plurality of variables; determine, by the appraisal engine, for each variable of the plurality of variables, a grouping of specification ranges based on the specification values corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties; generate, by the appraisal engine, a plurality of visual representations based on the comparable properties and the target property, wherein each of the visual representations comprises a comparison of the target property and the plurality of comparable properties for a respective variable of the plurality of variables and graphically represents the grouping of specification ranges for the respective variable based on the specification values of the plurality of comparable properties (FIGS. 6A-6H; e.g., FIG. 6C: range of 11-17 for the variable MONTHLY SALES VOLUME; range of 32-40 for the variable AVG DAYS ON MARKET; FIGS. 10A – 10H; FIGS. 16A – 16D: e.g., price, price/sq. ft.);
compute, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value of the target property by determining an adjustment recommendation for at least one variable of the plurality of variables based on a respective visual representation of the plurality of visual representations ([0119] An implementation may display one or more value drivers on the UI (1106 FIG. 11D). Value drivers define a hierarchy of factors that impact value most and value adjustments for the property being appraised. Value drivers/factors may include location factors, house-specific factors, and view factors. The user/appraiser may use the value drivers to justify or explain an appraisal value. [0120] In some embodiments hereof the appraisal system may determine and provide a list of features that may be used to adjust the value of the property being appraised. For example, a value for a swimming pool, garden, fence, etc. may be provided via the UI. The appraiser may then use the list to adjust (e.g., add value to or subtract value from) the appraisal value. The system may track appraisers' use or non-use of these line item
adjustments, and may use this information to adjust the line item values for future use. [0133] With reference to FIGS. 14A-14D, the UI presents the appraiser with screen 1400 (for convenience here described as screens 1402, 1406, and 1408). The top portion 1402 of screen 1400 (FIG. 14B) provides information about how to use the regression analysis and gives the user a regression summary. The middle portion 1404 of screen 1400 (FIG. 14C) provides details of a multivariate analysis of comps with respect to various variables (e.g., “Gross living area,” “Boat,” “Actual Age,” “View,” “Pool,” “Site Area,” “Bedrooms,” “Location,” “Leasehold/Fee simple,” “Total rooms above grade,” “Total bathrooms above grade,” “Basement square footage,” “Rooms below grade,” “Heating/Cooling,” “Garage/carport,” and “Porch/patio/deck”). The UI (on screen portion 1404) also provides the appraiser with an indication of the impact of the various variables on the value. For example, in the example shown in FIGS. 14A-14D, six of the variables (“Gross living area,” “Boat,” “Actual Age,” “View,” “Pool,” “Site Area,”) are shown to have a high impact (with a P-value of less than 0.001), whereas the other variables are considered “not impactful.”)
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Waxman teaches determining an average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties, and applying the adjustment recommendation to the average sale price to generate the appraisal value of the target property ([0017] identity when the average price must be adjusted and also suggest how much that adjustment should be. [0028] In this way, properties of cells within the smart electronic spreadsheet 201 may be dynamically modified utilizing formulas and deviation thresholds in order to highlight, flag, and/or provide indicators for property appraisal metrics that have certain levels of deviations, such as a low deviation (e.g., thus, a mere average for such property appraisal metrics of comparable properties can be taken for assigning an appraisal value to the subject property 202), high deviation (e.g., thus, manual or automated
adjustment should be implemented and taken into account), etc. At 110, the method 100 ends. [0032] At 308, the values of the one or more additional property appraisal metrics may be averaged to compute an average comparable property appraisal metric (e.g., an average of about 1,017 square feet based upon an average of 950 square feet for the first comparable property 404, 1,152 square feet for the second comparable property 406, and 950 square feet for the third comparable property 408). The value of 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric, relating to the average of the basement square footage property appraisal metrics of the comparable properties, may be compared with the value of 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402, such as by using statistical analysis, to compute a suggested adjustment value to apply to an appraisal value for the subject property 402. The suggested adjustment value takes into account any deviation between the 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric of the comparable properties and the 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402. [0033] the suggested adjustment value may be automatically applied to the subject property 402. In an example, the suggested adjustment value may correspond to a dollar amount to apply to the appraisal value for the subject property 402 in order to take into account a deviation between the 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric of the comparable properties and the 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402. In this way, various messages may be provided to a user, such as an appraiser, regarding how to more accurately and precisely appraise the subject property 402).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of determining an average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties, and applying the adjustment recommendation to the average sale price to generate the appraisal value of the target property as taught in Waxman with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the system “to output a more accurate and/or objective final appraisal value for the subject property (Waxman [0006]).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman teaches the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above. Sicklick further teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions to compute, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value of the target property cause the one or more processors to further execute processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer readable storage media to: receive, by the appraisal engine, a value adjustment for each of the plurality of variables based on a respective visual representation ([0119] An implementation may display one or more value drivers on the UI (1106 FIG. 11D). Value drivers define a hierarchy of factors that impact value most and value adjustments for the property being appraised. Value drivers/factors may include location factors, house-specific factors, and view factors. The user/appraiser may use the value drivers to justify or explain an appraisal value. [0120] In some embodiments hereof the appraisal system may determine and provide a list of features that may be used to adjust the value of the property being appraised. For example, a value for a swimming pool, garden, fence, etc. may be provided via the UI. The appraiser may then use the list to adjust (e.g., add value to or subtract value from) the appraisal value. The system may track appraisers' use or non-use of these line item adjustments, and may use this information to adjust the line item values for future use. [0133] With reference to FIGS. 14A-14D, the UI presents the appraiser with screen 1400 (for convenience here described as screens 1402, 1406, and 1408). The top portion 1402 of screen 1400 (FIG. 14B) provides information about how to use the regression analysis and gives the user a regression summary. The middle portion 1404 of screen 1400
(FIG. 14C) provides details of a multivariate analysis of comps with respect to various variables (e.g., “Gross living area,” “Boat,” “Actual Age,” “View,” “Pool,” “Site Area,” “Bedrooms,” “Location,” “Leasehold/Fee simple,” “Total rooms above grade,” “Total bathrooms above grade,” “Basement square footage,” “Rooms below grade,” “Heating/Cooling,” “Garage/carport,” and “Porch/patio/deck”). The UI (on screen portion 1404) also provides the appraiser with an indication of the impact of the various variables on the value. For example, in the example shown in FIGS. 14A-14D, six of the variables (“Gross living area,” “Boat,” “Actual Age,” “View,” “Pool,” “Site Area,”) are shown to have a high impact (with a P-value of less than 0.001), whereas the other variables are considered “not impactful.”); and
generate, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value based on the value adjustment for each of the plurality of variables ([0124] When the user navigates to the “Appraisal Summary” the UI presents the Appraisal Summary screen 1200 (shown in FIGS. 12A-12G)).
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Waxman teaches determine, by the appraisal engine, an average sale value for the plurality of comparable properties ([0006] an evaluation is performed by taking comparable properties, averaging values of property appraisal metrics of the comparable properties, and determining and/or automatically implementing adjustments based upon a comparison of the average values to values of property appraisal metrics of the subject property. [0028] In this way, properties of cells within the smart electronic spreadsheet 201 may be dynamically modified utilizing formulas and deviation thresholds in order to highlight, flag, and/or provide indicators for property appraisal metrics that have certain levels of deviations, such as a low deviation (e.g., thus, a mere average for such property appraisal metrics of comparable properties can be taken for assigning an appraisal value to the subject property 202), high deviation (e.g., thus, manual or automated adjustment should be implemented and taken into account), etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of determining an average sale value for the plurality of comparable properties as taught in Waxman with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the system “to output a more accurate and/or objective final appraisal value for the subject property (Waxman [0006]).
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Waxman teaches generate, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value based on the average sale value of the plurality of comparable properties ([0006] an evaluation is performed by taking comparable properties, averaging values of property appraisal metrics of the comparable properties, and determining and/or automatically implementing adjustments based upon a comparison of the average values to values of property appraisal metrics of the subject property.
[0017] One or more systems and/or techniques for automated appraisal assessment utilizing a smart electronic spreadsheet are provided herein. Current real estate appraisal processes require a significant amount of manual effort by an appraiser, which can lead to increased preparation time as well as unnecessary effort in determining when adjustments are necessary. Subjectivity occurs due to the imprecise nature of determining if and how much of an adjustment is necessary to a comparable property. Efficiencies can be achieved if the appraiser can identify appropriate comparable properties (“comparables”) and average unadjusted values to develop an opinion of a value for a subject property. In order to achieve these efficiencies, a method should be able to identify circumstances in which the method is unable to return reliable values without a more detailed analysis of comparables, and thus the appraiser should be alerted that additional review and/or analysis is required. This is achieved with computer based smart spreadsheets which can identity when the average price must be adjusted and also suggest how much that adjustment should be) (see rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman teaches the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above. Sicklick further discloses wherein the processor-executable instructions to generate, by the appraisal engine, the plurality of visual representations cause the one or more processors to further execute processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer readable storage media to: determine, by the appraisal engine, a first variable of the plurality of variables; determine, by the appraisal engine, a specification value corresponding to the first variable for each of the plurality of comparable properties; and generate, by the appraisal engine, a first visual representation based on the specifications of the plurality of comparable properties, wherein the first visual representation indicates a number of comparable properties comprising similar specifications for the first variable (FIGS. 10A – 10H, 12G, and 16A – 16D).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman teaches the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above. Sicklick further discloses wherein: the processor-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to further execute processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer readable storage media to: receive, from a client device, a value adjustment for a first variable of the plurality of variables based on a respective visual representation by the appraisal engine ([0119] An implementation may display one or more value drivers on the UI (1106 FIG. 11D). Value drivers define a hierarchy of factors that impact value most and value adjustments for the property being appraised. Value drivers/factors may include location factors, house-specific factors, and view factors. The user/appraiser may use the value drivers to justify or explain an appraisal value. [0120] In some embodiments hereof the appraisal system may determine and provide a list of features that may be used to adjust the value of the property being appraised. For example, a value for a swimming pool, garden, fence, etc. may be provided via the UI. The appraiser may then use the list to adjust (e.g., add value to or subtract value from) the appraisal value. The system may track appraisers' use or non-use of these line item adjustments, and may use this information to adjust the line item values for future use. [0133] With reference to FIGS. 14A-14D, the UI presents the appraiser with screen 1400 (for convenience here described as screens 1402, 1406, and 1408). The top portion 1402 of screen 1400 (FIG. 14B) provides information about how to use the regression analysis and gives the user a regression summary. The middle portion 1404 of screen 1400 (FIG. 14C) provides details of a multivariate analysis of comps with respect to various variables (e.g., “Gross living area,” “Boat,” “Actual Age,” “View,” “Pool,” “Site Area,” “Bedrooms,” “Location,” “Leasehold/Fee simple,” “Total rooms above grade,” “Total bathrooms above grade,” “Basement square footage,” “Rooms below grade,” “Heating/Cooling,” “Garage/carport,” and “Porch/patio/deck”). The UI (on screen portion 1404) also provides the appraiser with an indication of the impact of the various variables on the value. For example, in the example shown in FIGS. 14A-14D, six of the variables (“Gross living area,” “Boat,” “Actual Age,” “View,” “Pool,” “Site Area,”) are shown to have a high impact (with a P-value of less than 0.001), whereas the other variables are considered “not impactful.”); and
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Waxman teaches generate, by the appraisal engine, an adjustment recommendation for each of the plurality of variables based on the plurality of visual representations; the processor-executable instructions to compute, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value of the target property based on the plurality of visual representations cause the one or more processors to further execute processor-executable instructions stored in the computer readable storage media to: compute, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value of the target property based on at least one adjustment recommendation for a respective variable of the plurality of variables and the value adjustment from the client device ([0032] At 308, the values of the one or more additional property appraisal metrics may be averaged to compute an average comparable property appraisal metric (e.g., an average of about 1,017 square feet based upon an average of 950 square feet for the first comparable property 404, 1,152 square feet for the second comparable property 406, and 950 square feet for the third comparable property 408). The value of 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric, relating to the average of the basement square footage property appraisal metrics of the comparable properties, may be compared with the value of 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402, such as by using statistical analysis, to compute a suggested adjustment value to apply to an appraisal value for the subject property 402. The suggested adjustment value takes into account any deviation between the 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric of the comparable properties and the 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402. [0033] the suggested adjustment value may correspond to a dollar amount to apply to the appraisal value for the subject property 402 in order to take into account a deviation between the 1,017 square feet for the average comparable property appraisal metric of the comparable properties and the 1,748 square feet for the basement square footage property appraisal metric of the subject property 402. In this way, various messages may be provided to a user, such as an appraiser, regarding how to more accurately and precisely appraise the subject property 402).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of generating, by the appraisal engine, an adjustment recommendation for each of the plurality of variables based on the plurality of visual representations; the processor-executable instructions to determine, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value of the target property based on the plurality of visual representations cause the one or more processors to further execute processor-executable instructions stored in the computer readable storage media to: determine, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value of the target property based on at least one adjustment recommendation for a respective variable of the plurality of variables and the value adjustment from the client device as taught in Waxman with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the system “to more accurately and precisely appraise the subject property” (Waxman [0033]).
II. Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicklick in view of Waxman and Hoover US 20120316981 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Hoover teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions to compute the appraisal value of the target property, when executed by the one or more processors, further direct the computing apparatus to: determine an adjusted average sale price based on the average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties and a temporal adjustment that normalizes sale prices of the plurality of comparable properties to present-day dollars ([0061] to determine the "should cost" price for an item, an average item price is determined from historic price data for the item and may be adjusted for inflation or other economic conditions using an index (e.g., CPI, PPI for commodities and/or industries) or other variables in the price risk scoring model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of determining an adjusted average sale price based on the average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties and a temporal adjustment that normalizes sale prices of the plurality of comparable properties to present-day dollars as taught in Hoover with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the user “to determine the ‘should cost’ price for an item” (Hoover [0061]).
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Waxman teaches applying the adjustment recommendation to the adjusted average sale price to generate the appraisal value of the target property ([0020] automatically apply suggested adjustment values to compensate for deviations, and/or notify an appraiser if results of analyzing the data and/or the data itself requires additional review and/or analysis by the appraiser) (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Hoover teaches wherein computing, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value of the target property comprises: determining, by the appraisal engine, an adjusted average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties based on the average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties and a temporal adjustment that normalizes sale prices of the plurality of comparable properties to present-day dollars ([0061] to determine the "should cost" price for an item, an average item price is determined from historic price data for the item and may be adjusted for inflation or other economic conditions using an index (e.g., CPI, PPI for commodities and/or industries) or other variables in the price risk scoring model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of determining, by the appraisal engine, an adjusted average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties based on the average sale price of the plurality of comparable properties and a temporal adjustment that normalizes sale prices of the plurality of comparable properties to present-day dollars as taught in Hoover with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the user “to determine the ‘should cost’ price for an item” (Hoover [0061]).
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Waxman teaches applying, by the appraisal engine, the adjusted recommendation to the adjusted average sale price to generate, by the appraisal engine, the appraisal value of the target property ([0020] automatically apply suggested adjustment values to compensate for deviations, and/or notify an appraiser if results of analyzing the data and/or the data itself requires additional review and/or analysis by the appraiser) (see rejection above for combination rationale).
III. Claims 5, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicklick in view of Waxman and Jabara US 20190228042 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Jabara teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further direct the computing apparatus to: transmit a request to a property database for the specifications corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties, wherein each of the plurality of specifications correspond to a respective comparable property of the plurality of comparable properties ([0018] The system 100
searches the database 106 for appropriate real estate listings within the user-selected mapped area. [0021] the user may apply such status as a search criteria such that listings from the database 106 are filtered on the basis of, among other things, the selected property status).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of transmit a request to a property database for the specifications corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties, wherein each of the plurality of specifications correspond to a respective comparable property of the plurality of comparable properties as taught in Jabara with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the user “to filter through the massive amounts of data” (Jabara [0004]).
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Jabara teaches generate the plurality of visual representations based on the grouping of specification ranges, wherein each of the plurality of visual representations corresponds to a respective specification of the plurality of specifications ([0042] FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary embodiment used to implement the system 100. The flowchart of FIG. 6 illustrates the display of data elements for review by the user and for the simplified process for the user to either save a particular result item or to delete the particular result. The display items can be, for example, real estate listings that are the result of a search based on user-selected search criteria. As noted above, such search criteria can include geographic area, age of the house (i.e., year of construction), house style, number of bedrooms/bathrooms, minimum/maximum price ranges, minimum/maximum square footages, and the like. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the user can select any of these search criteria as a basis for filtering results from the database 106. In this example, the results of a search may typically include a number of real estate listings. The user can sequentially view each of the listings and, with a simple swipe of the finger on the display of the mobile device 112, either save a particular search result or delete it. As the user swipes their finger across the current page of results, the next page of results is automatically display for user evaluation) (see rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Sicklick further teaches the method further comprising: requesting, by the appraisal engine, the specifications corresponding to the plurality of comparable properties from a property database, wherein each of the specifications corresponds to a respective comparable property of the plurality of comparable properties ([0094] With further reference to FIG. 7F, in operation, an appraiser may add/edit details for comparable property selection, based, e.g., on the subject property's details. [0110] FIGS. 10A-10H show screens 1000, 1002, 1004, 1006, 1008, 1010,
1012, presented on the UI that show information about comparable properties. Screen portion 1002
(FIG. 10B) shows a listing of comparable properties (“comps”) selected, e.g., based on similarity to the property being appraised. Preferably the comps are initially selected by the backend 102 and the appraiser is able to use the UI to adjust the values and/or select different or additional comps (e.g., using “Add Comp” button in 1010, FIG. 10G). Claim 9 The framework of claim 6 wherein each of said one or more devices is further programmed to: (B)(5) provide a regression summary of comparable properties with respect to various variables. FIGS. 16A – 16D).
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Jabara teaches generating, by the appraisal engine, the plurality of visual representations based on the grouping of specification ranges, wherein each of the plurality of visual representations corresponds to a respective specification of the plurality of specifications ([0042] FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary embodiment used to implement the system 100. The flowchart of FIG. 6 illustrates the display of data elements for review by the user and for the simplified process for the user to either save a particular result item or to delete the particular result. The display items can be, for example, real estate listings that are the result of a search based on user-selected search criteria. As noted above, such search criteria can include geographic area, age of the house (i.e., year of construction), house style, number of bedrooms/bathrooms, minimum/maximum price ranges, minimum/maximum square footages, and the like. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the user can select any of these search criteria as a basis for filtering results from the database 106. In this example, the results of a search may typically include a number of real estate listings. The user can sequentially view each of the listings and, with a simple swipe of the finger on the display of the mobile device 112, either save a particular search result or delete it. As the user swipes their finger across the current page of results, the next page of results is automatically display for user evaluation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of generating, by the appraisal engine, the plurality of visual representations based on the grouping of specification ranges, wherein each of the plurality of visual representations corresponds to a respective specification of the plurality of specifications as taught in Jabara with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the user “to filter through the massive amounts of data” (Jabara [0004]).
Regarding Claim 18, Sicklick discloses the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above. Sicklick further teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions to generate, by the appraisal engine, the plurality of visual representations cause the one or more processors to further execute processor-executable instructions stored in the computer readable storage media to: determine, by the appraisal engine, a plurality of specifications, wherein each of the plurality of specifications correspond to a respective comparable property of the plurality of comparable properties ([0094] With further reference to FIG. 7F, in operation, an appraiser may add/edit details for comparable property selection, based, e.g., on the subject property's details. [0110] FIGS. 10A-10H show screens 1000, 1002,
1004, 1006, 1008, 1010, 1012, presented on the UI that show information about comparable properties. Screen portion 1002 (FIG. 10B) shows a listing of comparable properties (“comps”) selected, e.g., based on similarity to the property being appraised. Preferably the comps are initially selected by the backend
102 and the appraiser is able to use the UI to adjust the values and/or select different or additional comps (e.g., using “Add Comp” button in 1010, FIG. 10G). Claim 9 The framework of claim 6 wherein each of said one or more devices is further programmed to: (B)(5) provide a regression summary of comparable properties with respect to various variables. FIGS. 16A – 16D).
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Jabara teaches determine, by the appraisal engine, a specification range for each of the plurality of variables based on each of the plurality of specifications ([0039] FIG. 5 illustrates the display of the mobile device 112 in response to the selection of the Search command button 154 in FIG. 4. The search feature permits the user to easily select search parameters. A Price Range 160 display user-selected price ranges (if any). A price slide bar 162 allows the user to define a price range. The user can define a low end of a desired price range by touching the low (i.e., left) end of the price slide bar 162 and slide it to the right. As the user finger slides to the right, the minimum price is shown on the display of the mobile device 112. Similarly, the user can define an upper price by touching the upper (i.e., right) end of the price slide bar 162 and slide it to the left. As the user finger slides to the left, the maximum price is shown on the display of the mobile device 112. [0040] A size slide bar 164 operates in a similar manner to permit the user to define a square footage range. The user can define a lower end of the square footage range by touching the low (i.e., left) end of the size slide bar 164 and slide it to the right. As the user finger slides to the right, the minimum square footage is shown on the display of the mobile device 112. Similarly, the user can define an upper end of the square footage range by touching the upper (i.e., right) end of the size slide bar 164 and slide it to the left. As the user finger slides to the left, the maximum square footage is shown on the display of the mobile device 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process of determining, by the appraisal engine, a specification range for each of the plurality of variables based on each of the plurality of specifications as taught in Jabara with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the user “to filter through the massive amounts of data” (Jabara [0004]).
Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Jabara teaches generate, by the appraisal engine, the plurality of visual representations based on a respective specification range, wherein each of the plurality of visual representations corresponds to a respective specification of the plurality of specifications ([0042] FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary embodiment used to implement the system 100. The flowchart of FIG. 6 illustrates the display of data elements for review by the user and for the simplified process for the user to either save a particular result item or to delete the particular result. The display items can be, for example, real estate listings that are the result of a search based on user-selected search criteria. As noted above, such search criteria can include geographic area, age of the house (i.e., year of construction), house style, number of bedrooms/bathrooms, minimum/maximum price ranges, minimum/maximum square footages, and the like. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the user can select any of these search criteria as a basis for filtering results from the database 106. In this example, the results of a search may typically include a number of real estate listings. The user can sequentially view each of the listings and, with a simple swipe of the finger on the display of the mobile device 112, either save a particular search result or delete it. As the user swipes their finger across the current page of results, the next page of results is automatically display for user evaluation) (see rejection above for combination rationale).
IV. Claims 6, 12, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicklick in view of Waxman and Treadwell US 20160027069 A1.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Treadwell teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions to determine the plurality of comparable properties, when executed by the one or more processors, further direct the computing apparatus to: determine a listing of properties comprising physical proximity to the target property; determining a subset of properties within the listing of properties comprising temporal proximity to the target property; and filtering, by the appraisal engine, the subset of properties to determine the plurality of comparable properties based on the plurality of variables ([0014] Weighting, ranking and displaying of the comparable properties on a map image may also be performed based upon their appropriateness as comparables for the subject condo property. The weighting and corresponding ranking may be based upon the economic distance from the subject condo property and other factors (e.g., geographic and temporal distance). [0058] Weighting, ranking and displaying of the comparable properties on a map image may also be performed based upon their appropriateness as comparables for the subject condo property. The weighting and corresponding ranking may be based upon the economic distance from the subject condo property and other factors (e.g., geographic and temporal distance). [0123] Once these adjustment factors have been determined 210, the economic distance, geographic distance and temporal distance between the subject property and respective individual comparable properties is determined 212. The economic distance is preferably constituted as a quantified value representative of the estimated price difference between the two properties as determined from the set of adjustment factors for each of the explanatory variables).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processor-executable instructions to determine the plurality of comparable properties, when executed by the one or more processors, further direct the computing apparatus to: determine a listing of properties comprising physical proximity to the target property; determining a subset of properties within the listing of properties comprising temporal proximity to the target property; and filtering, by the appraisal engine, the subset of properties to determine the plurality of comparable properties based on the plurality of variables as taught in Treadwell with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the system “to avoid over-inclusion in the grouping” (Treadwell [0170]).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Treadwell teaches wherein determining, by the appraisal engine, the plurality of comparable properties comprises: determining, by the appraisal engine, a listing of properties comprising physical proximity to the target property; and filtering, by the appraisal engine, the listing of properties to determine the plurality of comparable properties based on the plurality of variables ([0014] Weighting, ranking and displaying of the comparable properties on a map image may also be performed based upon their appropriateness as comparables for the subject condo property. The weighting and corresponding ranking may be based upon the economic distance from the subject condo property and other factors (e.g., geographic and temporal distance). [0058] Weighting, ranking and displaying of the comparable properties on a map image may also be performed based upon their appropriateness as comparables for the subject condo property. The weighting and corresponding ranking may be based upon the economic distance from the subject condo property and other factors (e.g., geographic and temporal distance). [0123] Once these adjustment factors have been determined 210, the economic distance, geographic
distance and temporal distance between the subject property and respective individual comparable properties is determined 212. The economic distance is preferably constituted as a quantified value representative of the estimated price difference between the two properties as determined from the set of adjustment factors for each of the explanatory variables).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process wherein determining, by the appraisal engine, the plurality of comparable properties comprises: determining, by the appraisal engine, a listing of properties comprising physical proximity to the target property; and filtering, by the appraisal engine, the listing of properties to determine the plurality of comparable properties based on the plurality of variables as taught in Treadwell with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the system “to avoid over-inclusion in the grouping” (Treadwell [0170]).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Sicklick, Waxman and Treadwell teaches the limitations of claim 12, as discussed above. Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Treadwell teaches determining, by the appraisal engine, a subset of properties within the listing of properties comprising temporal proximity to the target property; and filtering, by the appraisal engine, the subset of properties to determine the plurality of comparable properties based on the plurality of variables ([0014] Weighting, ranking and displaying of the comparable properties on a map image may also be performed based upon their appropriateness as comparables for the subject condo property. The weighting and corresponding ranking may be based upon the economic distance from the subject condo property and other factors (e.g., geographic and temporal distance). [0058] Weighting, ranking and displaying of the comparable properties on a map image may also be performed based upon their appropriateness as comparables for the subject condo property. The weighting and corresponding ranking may be based upon the economic distance from the subject condo property and other factors (e.g., geographic and temporal distance). [0123] Once these adjustment factors have been determined 210, the economic distance, geographic distance and temporal distance between the subject property and respective individual comparable properties is determined 212. The economic distance is preferably constituted as a quantified value representative of the estimated price difference between the two properties as determined from the set of adjustment factors for each of the explanatory variables).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the determining, by the appraisal engine, a subset of properties within the listing of properties comprising temporal proximity to the target property; and filtering, by the appraisal engine, the subset of properties to determine the plurality of comparable properties based on the plurality of variables as taught in Treadwell with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the system “to avoid over-inclusion in the grouping” (Treadwell [0170]).
Regarding Claim 20, Sicklick discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Treadwell teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions to determine, by the appraisal engine, the plurality of comparable properties based on the target property cause the one or more processors to further execute processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer readable storage media to: determine, by the appraisal engine, a listing of properties comprising physical proximity to the target property; and filter, by the appraisal engine, the listing of properties based on the plurality of variables to determine the plurality of comparable properties ([0014] Weighting, ranking and displaying of the comparable properties on a map image may also be performed based upon their appropriateness as comparables for the subject condo property. The weighting and corresponding ranking may be based upon the economic distance from the subject condo property and other factors (e.g., geographic and temporal distance). [0058] Weighting, ranking and displaying of the comparable properties on a map image may also be performed based upon their appropriateness as comparables for the subject condo property. The weighting and corresponding ranking may be based upon the economic distance from the subject condo property and other factors (e.g., geographic and temporal distance). [0123] Once these adjustment factors have been determined 210, the economic distance, geographic distance and temporal distance between the subject property and respective individual comparable properties is determined 212. The economic distance is preferably constituted as a quantified value representative of the estimated price difference between the two properties as determined from the set of adjustment factors for each of the explanatory variables).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processor-executable instructions to determine the plurality of comparable properties, when executed by the one or more processors, further direct the computing apparatus to: determine a listing of properties comprising physical proximity to the target property; determining a subset of properties within the listing of properties comprising temporal proximity to the target property; and filtering, by the appraisal engine, the subset of properties to determine the plurality of comparable properties based on the plurality of variables as taught in Treadwell with the property appraisal method of Sicklick because such a combination enables the system “to avoid over-inclusion in the grouping” (Treadwell [0170]).
V. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicklick in view of Waxman and Dengler US 20180240139 A1.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Sicklick and Waxman teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Sicklick does not explicitly teach, however Dengler teaches wherein the plurality of visual representations comprises a plurality of histogram, each of the plurality of visual representations corresponding to a respective histogram visually representing a respective variable of the plurality of variables for each of the comparable properties ([0033] y=949285.8683502316x − 1719097.7267492802 (number of bedrooms) [0034] y=867255.8395747668x−1461620.8718426342 (number of bathrooms) [0035] y = 1994990.7795422582x + 428312.3101282765 (lot size) [0036] y=645.5222322293x−638098.7346319178 (square footage/living area). Using these formulas, the system 10 can process and graph (e.g., scatter graph) each of the sample listings for each parameter, as illustrated in FIG. 4-5. FIG. 4 provides a graph of the linear regression for the “square footage” and FIG. 5 provides a graph of the linear regression for the “number of bathrooms.” The linear regression line is represented as LR in the graphs. Of course, these linear regressions can be calculated and processed for each of the considered parameter).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the visual representations in Sicklick with the visual representations in Dengler. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results). Such a simple substitution would yield the predictable result of a visual representations comprising histograms, each visually representing a respective variable of the plurality of variables for each of the comparable properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “[t]he claims are directed to a specific data processing architecture for analyzing and transforming structured property datasets, rather than to any human appraisal activity” (p. 12). The Examiner disagrees. As described more fully above, each claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of receiving; determining; determining; determining; parsing; determining; generating; and computing in a computer environment. The claimed computer-readable storage medium, appraisal engine; processors; and GUI are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that:
the claimed operations require structured processing of large datasets, aggregation of variable-specific values across multiple properties, generation of multiple interrelated graphical representations, and computation of valuation adjustments derived from those representations. Such operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind
or with pen and paper, particularly at the scale and level of structured data processing required by the claims
(p. 13). The Examiner disagrees. First of all, the Examiner notes that Applicant argues features not recited in the claims. Furthermore, as described more fully above, such features are directed to a method of managing commercial interactions between people (e.g., determining an appraisal value of a target property).
Applicant argues that:
the claims recite parsing property specifications, aggregating variable-specific values across multiple comparable properties, generating graphical visual representations of those aggregated datasets, and computing an appraisal value based on variable-specific adjustments derived from those representations. These operations are directed to the transformation and analysis of data within a computing system, not to organizing or managing human activity
(p. 14). The Examiner disagrees. The features referenced by Applicant are directed to a method of managing commercial interactions between people (e.g., determining an appraisal value of a target property).
Applicant argues that:
The Office Action's analysis improperly abstracts the claims by describing them at a high
level of generality and failing to account for the specific limitations and ordered combination recited in the claims. The amended claims do not recite generic application of these functions, but instead define a specific sequence of structured data transformations performed by the appraisal engine. For example, the claims require: (i) parsing specifications of both a target property and a plurality of comparable properties to extract variable-specific data; (ii) determining grouped specification ranges based on aggregated comparable property values; (iii) generating graphical visual representations that encode those grouped datasets; and (iv) computing an appraisal value by applying variable-specific adjustments derived from those representations … When considered as a whole, the claims recite a particular implementation for processing structured property data and generating an appraisal value
(pp. 14-15). The Examiner disagrees. As described more fully above, such features can be performed in the human mind with pen and paper and/or are directed to a method of managing commercial interactions between people (e.g., determining an appraisal value of real property for sale/purchase).
Applicant argues:
The claims are directed to a specific technological solution to deficiencies in
conventional appraisal systems. As described in the specification, conventional appraisal approaches are limited by subjective selection of comparable properties, isolated adjustments to individual comparable properties, and inefficiencies that restrict the number of comparable properties that can be considered (Spec., para. 0020-0022). These limitations reflect technical
shortcomings in how appraisal systems process and analyze property data, including an inability to efficiently aggregate and evaluate large datasets of comparable properties
(p. 15 (emphasis added)). The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s argument support the Examiner’s position that the solution proposed by the claims do not solve a technical problem; rather, the claims purport to solve a commercial problem (the appraisal of real property).
Applicant argues that “[the claimed] approach differs fundamentally from conventional appraisal techniques” (p. 16). The Examiner disagrees. As described more fully above, each claim element is taught by the prior art.
Applicant argues that Sicklick “does not parse property specifications to dynamically compute variable-specific specification ranges derived from the distribution of values across the comparable properties themselves” (p. 17).
It is not entirely clear which claim elements Applicant is referring to; however, such features are taught in at least FIGS. 6A-6H (e.g., range of 11-17 for the variable MONTHLY SALES VOLUME; range of 32-40 for the variable AVG DAYS ON MARKET), FIGS. 10A – 10H, FIGS. 16A – 16D (e.g., price, price/sq. ft.) of Sicklick.
Applicant argues that:
The visual representations disclosed in the present application, such as the histograms illustrated in FIGS. 5-6, convey how comparable properties cluster within computed ranges and where the target property falls relative to those clusters. Sicklick does not generate visual representations that graphically encode such grouping structures derived from comparable property distributions
(pp. 17-18). Again, Applicant argues features not recited in the claims.
Applicant argues that “Sicklick does not disclose or suggest adjusting the target property against an aggregate baseline derived from comparable properties” (p. 18). Once more, Applicant argues features not recited in the claims.
Applicant argues that “Sicklick does not … teach computing adjustment recommendations based on visualized distributions of comparable property specifications” (p. 18). The Examiner disagrees. As described more fully above, such features are taught in at least pp. [0119], [0120], and [0133] of Sicklick.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUANE MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-7544. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached on (571)272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights