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 12/29/2025.
The effective filing date of the present application is 06/27/2017.
Claims 2, 3, 6 – 8, and 11, are pending; claims 4, 5, 9, and 10, being presently cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 12/29/205 have been entered and considered.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 3 and 8 have rendered the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as moot; therefore, that prior rejection for these claims is withdrawn.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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, 3, 6 – 8, and 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the claims are directed toward a method and system; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims set forth a method for gathering data about properties and those who viewed those properties, and then generating a graphical representation of interest in that property. This method describes a mental process in the manner of observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The claim elements describe communicating showing, (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, wherein the electronic box is configured to:
communicate via a short distance communication standard with a mobile application on a handheld device,
provide physical access to the subject property in response to communication from the mobile application,
store a count of proprietary keys generated for the subject property, and
create a timestamp indicating that the electronic key box is opened, and 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 2 and 7 recite the following additional elements:
an electronic key box, configured to communicate via a short distance communication standard with a mobile application on a handheld device;
a timestamp;
an electronic key server that is part of a subsystem further comprising a buyer storage system;
a listing recommendation server;
a listing database;
a real estate application;
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: (an electronic key box, configured to communicate via a short distance communication standard with a mobile application on a handheld device; a timestamp; an electronic key server that is part of a subsystem further comprising a buyer storage system; a listing recommendation server; a listing database; a real estate application; 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 and create a timestamp. This element is 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.”. 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 6 and 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, 3, 6 – 8, and 11, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant traverses the prior rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 6. Applicant remarks that amended claims 2 and 7 add specific technical limitations regarding the electronic key box’s functionality and adds, these amendments demonstrate that the key box performs a “specific technological function” that integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. See page 7. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
First, a component that performs a technological function is not a condition that would show integration into a practical application. Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element, or combination of elements, may integrated a judicial exception into a practical application include: an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a), among others also identified at MPEP 2106.04(d). Applicant is not detailing any improvement to the functioning of a computer (the system recited) or an improvement to other technology (electronic key boxes, communication via a short distance communication standard). Applicant is merely using the generically defined components, in their ordinary capacity, to receive, store, or transmit data. This does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant contends that the electronic key box controls physical access to the property and generates technical data. As noted above, these steps merely require the transmission of data: “[a]ccess may be provided for one or more properties by a showing code, or other information that unlocks one or more modules in the real estate application 38”, and “[t]he showing agent “R” also uses the agent application 40 to operate the electronic key box 50 to access the property for showing to the buyer ‘B.’”. Further, the system relies on broadly and generically defined devices to manage the application and boxes vie short distance communication standards (e.g., Bluetooth®). This is mere use of the system without detailing any steps or components that might provide for use this technology and integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant adds that this “specific technological function” goes beyond generic components, rather it identifies a “specific type of wireless communication architecture suitable for proximity-based physical access control.” See page 8. This is not persuasive. As argued on page 8, Applicant is relying on Bluetooth® technology to transmit data among several ordinary and ubiquitous devices. Again, the mere use of components, in their ordinary capacity, without showing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology, does not provide for integration into a practical application. The arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant next discussed analysis under Step 2B. See page 8. Applicant argues that by “specifying the mechanisms by which the electronic key operates”, the amended claims will amount to significantly more. Applicant points to certain aspects of the method and system employed, including; communication standard, stores key counts, creates timestamps, that are concrete technical implementation that transform generic computer functionality into a specific technological solution. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assessment and finds this argument not persuasive.
Similar to much of the previous discussion, when analyzing the additional elements at Step 2B, the additional elements of: (an electronic key box, configured to communicate via a short distance communication standard with a mobile application on a handheld device; a timestamp; an electronic key server that is part of a subsystem further comprising a buyer storage system; a listing recommendation server; a listing database; a real estate application; 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 and create a timestamp. This element is 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.”. Accordingly, the above additional elements, in combination, do not amount to significantly more.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks that the Examiner’s observation that “further delineations of significant limitations provided by the electronic key box would be useful at Step 2B analysis; the Examiner finds reliance on this comment as misplaced. As guided by the MPEP, the Examiner further notes that an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327. Simply amending claims to repeat the same recitations directed to an abstract idea will not serve to move the claims toward eligibility. If limitations contained with the cancelled claims show how the separate devices interoperate, to provide access or work with proprietary keys, perhaps in an unconventional manner, they may lead to an inventive concept. Instead, the amended claims still recite ordinary devices operating in their normal capacity to receive, store, and transmit data. Thus, the Examiner must conclude the claims are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f) and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering, as discussed, per MPEP 2106.05(g). Alone, and in combination, these additional elements do not provide for significantly more.
Claims Distinguished over Prior Art
Regarding the amended claims, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Upon updated research and in view of amendments to the claims, the Examiner maintains the conclusion detailed within the Office Action filed 12/29/2025. Accordingly, the current claim set is distinguished over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights