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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/02/2026 has been entered.
Detailed Action
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s filing of 09/02/2026.
The effective filing date of the present application is 06/27/2017.
Claims 2, 3, 6 – 8, and 11, are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 09/02/2026 have been entered and considered.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and Specification have been entered.
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 data, (a number of times shown, time spent at the subject property for each showing, and a number of return showings - observations), buyer and third-party feedback, (opinions), identifying comparable properties, (evaluations), and, identifying competitive buyers, (opinions and/or judgments). 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 attended showings of the subject property and one of the comparable properties as indicated in the showing data;
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:
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;
a timestamp;
communicating the showing data to an electronic key server that is part of a subsystem further comprising a buyer storage system;
communicating the showing data with buyer feedback for the subject property to 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. The Examiner notes that generating data, communicating data, storing data in a database and a timestamp (metadata) are apt descriptions of receiving, storing, or transmitting data, an application program is an apt description of instructions within a computer, and a user interface is use of an ordinary device to display data. See [0038]. 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, the additional elements of: (an electronic key box at the subject property; 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 user interface), amount 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. See 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 refinement 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 09/02/2026 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 7. The applicant would like to focus on analysis at Step 2A and whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant cites the following: implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b). See page 8.
Applicant next point to Eibel as an example of a machine that is well-known yet known in the art to be not merely a general-purpose computer or other generic device. Applicant argues the Examiner has viewed the instant claims additional elements in the wrong view. See page 9. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
The Examiner would add deeper analysis at MPEP § 2106.05(b) which begins, “It is noted that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010). After this analysis, the Examiner maintains the conclusion that the electronic key box is not specifically identified and does not integrate the judicial exception (a mental process of gathering data about properties and those who viewed those properties and then generating a graphical representation of interest in that property) into a practical application, per MPEP 2106.05(b) as follows.
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus. This point focuses on the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). Applicant’s arguments here are not persuasive. First, the cited example of Eibel notes that a particular machine was arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper. That is not aligned with Applicant’s electronic key box. Note that Applicant’s disclosure defines this box as “an electronic key box 50”. Applicant’s use of a generically defined electronic key box (machine) is not enough to provide for integration.
Whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method. Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The Examiner maintains the conclusion that the electronic key box functions solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Applicant notes this mere use of the electronic key box: “[t]he subsystem 12 may also obtain information generated by an electronic key box 50 that occurs as a consequence of the showing”. (Emphasis added). See also, [0041], The agent application 40 may be a mobile application on the handheld device 30 that may be used by the showing agent “R” to access the electronic key boxes 50 via a short distance communication standard (e.g., Bluetooth). Alternatively, or in addition, the electronic key boxes 50 may be connected (e.g., cellular) directly to the listing recommendation server 14. The electronic key API 36 of the electronic key server 22 communicates with the agent application 40 to sync activity information from the electronic key boxes 50 to the electronic key API 36.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, the Examiner maintains the conclusion that the electronic key box is an obvious mechanism for permitting the gathering of data about properties and those who viewed those properties mental process. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009. Here, the Examiner maintains as remarked in earlier responses that the use of this electronic key box serves to transmit data: 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.’”; and, “[t]he subsystem 12 may also obtain information generated by an electronic key box 50 that occurs as a consequence of the showing”. This latter disclosure points to the fact that the electronic key box is mere data gathering (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception (an electronic lock box) require such data gathering or data output). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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:
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 attended showings of the subject property and one of the comparable properties as indicated in the showing data;
calculating a first ratio of the quantity of competitive buyers and the quantity of comparable properties;
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.
Claims 3, 6, 8, and 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, 3, 6 – 8, and 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.
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
Prosecution Insights