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 .
Detailed Action
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s filing of 08/02/2024.
The effective filing date of the present application is 06/27/2017.
Claims 2 – 11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 8 recite selecting a form for displaying a ratio with the second ratio - "displaying the first ratio as a ratio of a quantity of comparable properties to a quantity of comparable properties" – having insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The ratio, defined in claims 2 and 7, to which claims 3 and 8 depend, calculates a ratio of “quantity of competitive buyers and quantity of comparable properties”. The recitation within claims 3 and 8 describes a ratio that is not calculated, nor defined, within the disclosure; therefore, being indefinite. The Specification teaches inverting a ratio; this may be how the claims should be amended.
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 2 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step One of analysis, the claims recite a method and a system; therefore, the claims recite appropriate subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims describe a user gathering data about properties and those who viewed those properties, and then generating a graphical representation of heightened interest in that property. This method describes a mental process in the manner of observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These include communicating showing data, (observation), buyer and third-party feedback, (opinion), identifying comparable properties, (evaluation), and, identifying competitive buyers, (opinion and/or judgment). A mental process is considered an abstract idea.
Claim 2, which is illustrative of claim 7, contains the elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method for determining competitive interest in a subject property comprising:
generating, at an electronic key box at the subject property, showing data in response to one or more users accessing the subject property by communicating from a mobile application on a handheld device to the electronic key box, wherein the showing data includes one or more of the following: a number of times shown, a time spent at the subject property for each showing, and a number of return showings;
communicating the showing data to an electronic key server that is part of a subsystem further comprising a buyer storage system;
receiving and storing, in the buyer storage system, buyer feedback and third-party feedback for the subject property;
communicating the showing data with buyer feedback for the subject property to a listing recommendation server;
at the listing recommendation server, identifying a quantity of comparable properties using property data for the subject property, the showing data for the subject property, and the buyer feedback for the subject property;
at the listing recommendation server, maintaining a listing database and identifying a quantity of competitive buyers, each competitive buyer having performed at least one of the following as indicated in the listing database:
viewing the subject property in a real estate application;
attending a showing of the subject property or one of the comparable properties; and
attending a showing of any property in a listing database of the listing recommendation server accessible through a real estate application;
calculating a first ratio of the quantity of competitive buyers and the quantity of comparable properties;
displaying the first ratio on a user interface;
calculating a second ratio of an average feedback rating from the quantity of competitive buyers regarding the subject property and an average feedback rating from the number of competitive buyers regarding the number of comparable properties; and
displaying the second ratio on the user interface.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1 and 7 recite the following additional elements:
an electronic key box;
a mobile application on a handheld device;
an electronic key server that is part of a subsystem further comprising a buyer storage system;
a listing recommendation server;
a listing database;
a user interface.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0021, 0034-0036, and 0038] as filed. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (a mobile application on a handheld device; an electronic key server that is part of a subsystem further comprising a buyer storage system; a listing recommendation server; a listing database; a user interface), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements basically describe use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data).
Further at Step 2B, the use of an electronic key box describes insignificant extra-solution activity, exemplified by activities that the courts have recognized, such as, mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims recite this additional element, as generating …showing data. This element is further identified at Specification [0037]: “The subsystem 12 may also obtain information from a Real Estate Transaction Standard (RETS) framework that stores MLS data. The subsystem 12 may also obtain information generated by an electronic key box 50 that occurs as a consequence of the showing, such as number of times shown, time spent at the subject property for each showing, return showings, etc.” Therefore, it seems the electronic key box accommodates generating showing data which is descriptive of mere data gathering. Further delineations of significant limitations provided by the electronic key box would be useful at Step 2B analysis; including providing access and use of a count of proprietary keys used, as recited in claims 4 and 9. Further, since the showing data is key to identifying buyers, to be used for calculating ratios, it is important to indicate if the electronic key box is communicating the showing data. This is not clear within the recited limitations. Accordingly, the above additional elements, in combination, do not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 3 and 8 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 2 and 7. Recitations to selecting a form for the ratios is a refinements of generating a graphical representation of interest in a property. Further, these claims rely on the generically described devices to implement (display) the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04)(d).
Dependent claims 4 – 6 and 9 – 11 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 2 and 7. Recitations to providing access, storing a count, creating a timestamp, and communicating a notification are further recitations to use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 2 – 11 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Claims Distinguished over Prior Art
Regarding claims 2 and 7, prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Cited prior art discloses a method for determining market demand for buying and selling properties, (Danzan). Other art teaches contextual data delivery to mobile users responsive to access of an electronic lockbox, (Fisher). However, the Examiner points to the recited combinations of elements that are not taught or suggested by the cited prior art of record within claims 2 and 7; specifically:
A method for determining competitive interest in a subject property comprising: generating, at an electronic key box at the subject property, showing data in response to one or more users accessing the subject property by communicating from a mobile application on a handheld device to the electronic key box, wherein the showing data includes one or more of the following: a number of times shown, a time spent at the subject property for each showing, and a number of return showings;
communicating the showing data with buyer feedback for the subject property to a listing recommendation server;
at the listing recommendation server, maintaining a listing database and identifying a quantity of competitive buyers, each competitive buyer having performed at least one of the following as indicated in the listing database:
viewing the subject property in a real estate application;
attending a showing of the subject property or one of the comparable properties; and
attending a showing of any property in a listing database of the listing recommendation server accessible through a real estate application;
calculating a first ratio of the quantity of competitive buyers and the quantity of comparable properties;
displaying the first ratio on a user interface;
calculating a second ratio of an average feedback rating from the quantity of competitive buyers regarding the subject property and an average feedback rating from the number of competitive buyers regarding the number of comparable properties; and
displaying the second ratio on the user interface.
Claims 3 – 6 and 8 – 11, based on their dependency to claims 2 and 7, and containing further limiting recitations, are also not disclosed by prior art. Accordingly, claims 2 – 11 are distinguished over prior art.
Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections within this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629