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
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 01/28/2026 for the application No. 18/793,722, Claims 1-5, 7-17 and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-5, 7-17 and 19-21 have been rejected.
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 1-5, 7-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-5, 7-17 and 19-21 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). Examiner’s analysis is presented below for all the claims.
Claim 1: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of “…querying … with some of the comparable property data set to obtain additional details for the subject property data set; evaluating the subject property data set with the comparable property data set, … to compare photographs from the subject property dataset and the comparable property data set; … generating an appraisal report including the subject property data set, the comparable property data set and the indicated value, … to assist in formatting some of the data included in the appraisal report according to well- known standards…”.
The “querying, evaluating, generating” limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. A method for objectively providing a listing of comparable real estate properties. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as, “receiving … an appraisal request, the appraisal request including a subject property data set, the subject property data set including a subject property address, at least one subject property photograph, …; accessing … to obtain a comparable property data set using the subject property address as a search criteria, the comparable property data set comprising a plurality of comparable property addresses, a plurality of comparable property photographs, and a plurality of sales reports for a plurality of comparable properties; providing the appraisal report to the requester..” These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data. It is merely gathering data.
The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure:
“by a software application executing on at least one server having a processor and memory”, “over a network “, “a multiple listing service (MLS) database”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “including accessing a second third party generative AI tool “, “via the network”, “subject property information extracted from at least one of a purchase agreement and/or an engagement letter;” “assigning an indicated value determined using at least one of a sales comparison approach, an income approach, and/or a cost approach, the sales comparison approach using the square footage measurement and the gross living area measurement;” The limitations comprise generic recited computer elements and software. The use of a “a multiple listing service (MLS) database” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea because it merely reflects the use of conventional technology and amounts to only generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim,
“by a software application executing on at least one server having a processor and memory”, “over a network “, “a multiple listing service (MLS) database”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “including accessing a second third party generative AI tool “, “via the network”, “subject property information extracted from at least one of a purchase agreement and/or an engagement letter;” “assigning an indicated value determined using at least one of a sales comparison approach, an income approach, and/or a cost approach, the sales comparison approach using the square footage measurement and the gross living area measurement;” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the limitations:
“by a software application executing on at least one server having a processor and memory”, “over a network “, “a multiple listing service (MLS) database”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “including accessing a second third party generative AI tool “, “via the network”, “subject property information extracted from at least one of a purchase agreement and/or an engagement letter;” “assigning an indicated value determined using at least one of a sales comparison approach, an income approach, and/or a cost approach, the sales comparison approach using the square footage measurement and the gross living area measurement;” These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data). Accessing or receiving data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the elements
“by a software application executing on at least one server having a processor and memory”, “over a network “, “a multiple listing service (MLS) database”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “including accessing a second third party generative AI tool “, “via the network”, “subject property information extracted from at least one of a purchase agreement and/or an engagement letter;” “assigning an indicated value determined using at least one of a sales comparison approach, an income approach, and/or a cost approach, the sales comparison approach using the square footage measurement and the gross living area measurement;” ”, are anything other than generic software, data and hardware, and the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. Concluding that generating information as a function of other information and a "dynamic" limitation is not sufficient to remove the claims from the abstract realm. The use of an estimation function is similarly deficient, as it merely reflects the use of the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of estimating advertising elasticity. In this case, “by a software application executing on at least one server having a processor and memory”, “over a network “, “a multiple listing service (MLS) database”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “including accessing a second third party generative AI tool “, “via the network”, “subject property information extracted from at least one of a purchase agreement and/or an engagement letter;” “assigning an indicated value determined using at least one of a sales comparison approach, an income approach, and/or a cost approach, the sales comparison approach using the square footage measurement and the gross living area measurement;” is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “by a software application executing on at least one server having a processor and memory”, “over a network “, “a multiple listing service (MLS) database”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “including accessing a second third party generative AI tool “, “via the network”, “subject property information extracted from at least one of a purchase agreement and/or an engagement letter;” “assigning an indicated value determined using at least one of a sales comparison approach, an income approach, and/or a cost approach, the sales comparison approach using the square footage measurement and the gross living area measurement;” limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (d). The claim is ineligible.
Claim 15: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a storage medium.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-14, 16-17 and 19-21, the claims recite elements such as “wherein the subject property data set further comprises at least one comparable property address”, etc. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pg. No. 20160292800 (Smith) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20200402116 (AVRAHAMI).
As to claims 1 and 15, Smith discloses a method for objectively providing a listing of comparable real estate properties, the method performed by a software application executing on at least one server having a processor and memory
(“The present invention generally relates to appraisal valuation systems for ascertaining the monetary value of an asset for the purpose of selling, buying, collateralizing, or any other reason for desiring the worth of an asset. More particularly, the present invention presents an automated or routine appraisal valuation system or automated valuation model (AVM) specifically for meeting the needs of assets in real estate. Furthermore, the present invention discloses an automated valuation system which utilizes software to consistently automate the knowledge and skills that a seasoned real estate expert has for a selected geographic area, especially their ability to know exactly which physical, psychological, and other boundaries represent particularly comparable values for a selected piece of real estate…”, paragraph 1 and Fig. 1), the method comprising:
a) receiving over a network an appraisal request, the appraisal request including a subject property data set, the subject property data set including a subject property address, at least one subject property photograph, and subject property information
(“…selected specific property 55 and the recently sold properties 60, properties under sales contract 65,..”, paragraph 109 and see at least elements 55, 75 and 65,70 of Fig. 2.
See also “[0034] FIG. 2 shows a flowchart schematic starting with the selected specific property that is disposed within a specific tract of land with the selected specific property input attributes database and a step of locating a selected number of recently sold properties in the specific tract of land plus optionally locating actively for sale and under contract properties also within the specific tract of land, wherein the sold or active/contract properties are compared to building style, square footage, and lot size to further qualify into a first qualified assemblage for the comparable properties in the specific tract of land”, paragraph 34 and Fig. 2.
A specific property that is the subject property, “An automated real estate valuation system for a selected specific property, that uses specific property input attributes items”, abstract.
“[0028] Broadly, the present invention is of an automated real estate valuation system for a selected specific property [subject property], the present invention includes a direct physical selected specific property input attributes database that is existing being affixed to the selected specific property, the attributes database includes a plurality of input attributes that are fixed, tangible, and existing for the selected specific property that is disposed within a specific tract of land. Further included in the automated real estate valuation system is a plurality of primary token features associated with the selected specific property that are within the specific tract of land”, paragraph 28.
“[0089] A plurality of direct physical selected specific property input attributes 90 forming a database, the input attributes database 90 is existing for the selected specific property 55 that are affixed to the selected specific property 55…wherein each one of the following is defined as an item of the input attributes database 90 …Address of property…Text, photo, video, and audio of the property.”, paragraph 89 and Fig. 6.
See also more subject property information stored in Smith’s input attributes database
“[0094] Insulation levels.
Insurance history.
Leases.
[0095] Legal description of the lot.
Liens on the property….
Property deed type and status….
Sales price per square foot…
[0097] Water system.
Window type.
Jump Terms…”, paragraphs 94-97),
extracted from at least one of a purchase agreement and/or an engagement letter;
(“[0001] The present invention generally relates to appraisal valuation systems for ascertaining the monetary value of an asset for the purpose of selling, buying, collateralizing, or any other reason for desiring the worth of an asset. More particularly, the present invention presents an automated or routine appraisal valuation system or automated valuation model (AVM) specifically for meeting the needs of assets in real estate….”, paragraph 1,
Smith’s system teaches generation of a specific property appraisal or valuation based on data currently available in databases [Examiner interprets as data extracted from],
“[0072] An automatic property valuation model, system, or process that uses data based values available from numerous sources … wherein property values are determined on a mass basis for multiple properties wholly through an automated system gathering data, processing the data, and outputting a calculated property value, wherein the sole user manual input is what particular property they want a value calculated on. Although the data based values can be specific to a property from databases that reflect direct physical property attributes or input data sets 95 or attributes 90 (bedrooms, bathrooms, etc.), geographically based property attributes (proximity to amenities-banks, stores, etc.) which are common within a specific tract of land 75, and subjective more emotion based token features 100, 105 (finish, materials, appliances, etc.) being the non-geographical property features, all of which play a role in the value of the property 55. In other words, the true AVM is completely self-contained to generate a specific property valuation based on currently available databases without human intervention based solely upon a value manually requested for a specific property by a user”, paragraph 72 and elements 55, 75 and 65,70 of Fig. 2.
“[0073] A matrix of specific property 55 valuation 235 outputs recording a series of assumptions for each specific property 55 valuation output 235.”, paragraphs 72-73.
“Confidential User Communication Portal
[0074] Facilitates user access to the AVM 50 to perform their specific property 55 valuations 235 confidentially.
County
[0075] Land area as defined by public records being the county that the specific property 55 is located in.
Credential Protected Portal for User
[0076] Limited access to only allow a single user access to their specific account in the user database.
Direct Physical Specific Property Attribute Authentication Module
[0077] Using at least two independent sources to confirm a particular specific property 55 item”, paragraphs 74-77. See also Figs. 20 and 21 and associated disclosure, paragraphs 52-53.
“[0034] FIG. 2 shows a flowchart schematic starting with the selected specific property that is disposed within a specific tract of land with the selected specific property input attributes database and a step of locating a selected number of recently sold properties in the specific tract of land plus optionally locating actively for sale and under contract properties also within the specific tract of land, wherein the sold or active/contract properties are compared to building style, square footage, and lot size to further qualify into a first qualified assemblage for the comparable properties in the specific tract of land”, paragraph 34 and Fig. 2. The Examiner notes that Smith’s system has possession of “subject property information”. See cited prior art. Also, Smith’s system has possession of purchase agreement because Smith’s system has contract information for all the properties in the selected tract of land of the subject property, including the specific selected property, see at least elements 55, 75 and 65,70 of Fig. 2. Furthermore, it is usually given very low patentable weight to where the data is extracted from, the reference is provided for the sake of compact prosecution);
b) accessing a multiple listing service (MLS) database to obtain a comparable property data set using the subject property address as a search criteria, the comparable property data set comprising a plurality of comparable property addresses, a plurality of comparable property photographs, and a plurality of sales reports for a plurality of comparable properties;
(“The present invention utilizes data extracted from multiple listing services (MLSs), county property sales data, and/or other databases tracking real estate sold property information and/or properties actively for sale. The raw information is stored in a database for additional manipulations and calculations….”, paragraph 25.
See also “0006] For example, in the typical AVM system, utilizing zip codes as a geographic parameter of location is far too coarse or large to accurately value real estate through comparison. A zip code can turn up tremendous ranges of prices even for properties of equal size within any zip code. Subdivision names, while superficially appear to allow for accurate comparable properties can also turn up tremendous ranges of prices for seemingly similarly sized homes….”, paragraph 6);
c) querying a first third party generative AI tool with some of the comparable property data set to obtain additional details for the subject property data set;
(See Figs. 20 and 21 and associated disclosure, paragraphs 52-53.
“[0043] FIG. 11 shows a raw data plot that FIG. 10 is an idealized version of, wherein FIG. 11 shows the change in slope of the sold price per square foot over a range of properties sale prices within a single tract of land using a “K-Means” algorithm to create the horizontal divisions that are parallel to the “X” axis into what is termed “Q-Values” that are basically ranges of sold prices per square foot for various properties within a specific tract of land;
[0052] FIG. 20 shows the output of FIG. 17 that can be of high utility to the investor, wherein the output shows properties side by side to emphasize the similarities and differences in both tangible items such as square feet to the token features such as updated bath and kitchen, wherein the property value effect is shown based upon differences in tangible items and token features (being the emotional buying influences), wherein the differences are based upon real market data as calculated by the automated real estate valuation system, further an icon is provided for finding similar properties and the spread option in the form of the “Q” (being Q-Value) icons for various dollar amounts as in FIG. 17, as the differences in Q-Values are caused from various token features being added or subtracted”, paragraphs 43 and 52 and Figs. 11 and 20
Further, Smith discloses that is well known at the time of his invention “first third party generative AI tool “, “The second process in Khedkar et al., called AIGEN, is a generative artificial intelligence method that trains a fuzzy neural network using a subset of cases from a case-base, and produces a run-time system to provide an estimate of the subject property's value…”, paragraph 14 );
d) evaluating the subject property data set with the comparable property data set, [ …including using AI image recognition software to compare photographs… ] from the subject property dataset and the comparable property data set;
(“[0044] FIG. 12 shows a flow chart schematic specifically relating to the “find similar properties” button being clicked or alternatively the “find more” button being clicked or the “more like” button being clicked, reference the FIG. 20 sample screen shot, wherein specific token features are termed ‘jump terms” that are inherent in the program that are used to either find additional properties available with token features similar to the selected specific property, or are used to find additional comparable properties for a valuation when not enough recently sold properties are present within the selected specific property's specific tract of land, using the valuation algorithm, the system seeks out properties with matching physical and token feature or emotional characteristics, while additionally controlling for prices relative to these features and location, all within specified ranges”, paragraph 44 and Fig. 12);
e) assigning an indicated value;
(“[0044] FIG. 12 shows a flow chart schematic specifically relating to the “find similar properties” button being clicked or alternatively the “find more” button being clicked or the “more like” button being clicked, reference the FIG. 20 sample screen shot, wherein specific token features are termed ‘jump terms” that are inherent in the program that are used to either find additional properties available with token features similar to the selected specific property, or are used to find additional comparable properties for a valuation when not enough recently sold properties are present within the selected specific property's specific tract of land, using the valuation algorithm, the system seeks out properties with matching physical and token feature or emotional characteristics, while additionally controlling for prices relative to these features and location, all within specified ranges”, paragraph 24.
“0031] Next, for the automated real estate valuation system are instructions for determining a calculated output value for the selected specific property by utilizing the weights of the first qualified secondary token features that have the highest number of matching equivalents to the plurality of primary token features forming an equivalent batch portion of the first qualified weighted secondary token features that are used to adjust the third matched item to calculate a value for the third matched item defined as a secondary tokenized value that is applied to the third matched item to output a calculated value for the selected specific property via the valuation algorithm”, paragraph 31.
“…to output a calculated value for the selected specific property”, claim 1);
determined using at least one of a sales comparison approach, an income approach, and/or a cost approach, the sales comparison approach using the square footage measurement and the gross living area measurement;
(“[0001] The present invention generally relates to appraisal valuation systems for ascertaining the monetary value of an asset for the purpose of selling, buying, collateralizing, or any other reason for desiring the worth of an asset. More particularly, the present invention presents an automated or routine appraisal valuation system or automated valuation model (AVM…the present invention discloses an automated valuation system which utilizes software to consistently automate the knowledge and skills that a seasoned real estate expert has for a selected geographic area, especially their ability to know exactly which physical, psychological, and other boundaries represent particularly comparable values for a selected piece of real estate.” paragraph 1.
Smith discloses buy/sell analysis and appraisal, “…a home value system that collects real estate related data and adjusts the data using trend analysis, comparable market analysis, buy/sell signal analysis and appraisal engines, plus further responding to user inputs to output a property value. Sklarz completes a quick home value estimate in a particular zip code by taking a recent price per square foot and multiplying by respective living area values.”, paragraph 22 and Fig. 34 and associated disclosure)
PNG
media_image1.png
674
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
f) generating an appraisal report including the subject property data set, the comparable property data set and the indicated value, […including accessing a second third party generative AI tool…] to assist in formatting some of the data included in the appraisal report according to well- known standards;
(“0066] FIG. 34 shows a prior art sample of a portion of a standard appraisal report that delineates the basic input attributes that apply to the selected specific property and the like grouping of input data that apply to the comparable properties, although additional input attributes and input data could also be included, prior art manual on-site appraisals by an individual appraiser use the basic input attributes and input data in comparing the selected specific property to the comparable properties, which could be termed comparing the fixed tangible physical aspects of various properties to one another, wherein manual appraisal value adjustments are made for differences in the fixed tangible physical aspects of various properties to one another (such as adding or subtracting a set amount from the manual appraisal for different numbers of bedrooms between properties), note that there is no consideration of unique individual property aspects of function/feature/finish/quality/material/groupings that do have a market influence upon property value;
[0199] Next, FIG. 34 shows a prior art sample of a portion of a standard appraisal report form that delineates the basic input attributes 90 that apply to the selected specific property 55 and the like grouping of input data 95 that apply to the comparable properties 60, 65, and/or 70, although additional input attributes 90 and input data 95 could also be included. Thus in FIG. 34 for prior art manual on-site appraisals by an individual appraiser use the basic input attributes 90 and input data 95 in comparing the selected specific property 55 to the comparable properties 60, 65, and/or 70, the basic input attributes 90 and input data 95 which could be termed comparing the fixed tangible physical aspects 90, 95 of various properties 55, plus 60, 65, and/or 70 to one another, wherein manual appraisal value adjustments + (−) are made for differences in the fixed tangible physical aspects 90, 95 of various properties 55, plus 60, 65, and/or 70 to one another (such as adding or subtracting a set property value amount from the manual appraisal for different numbers of bedrooms 90, 95 between properties 55, plus 60, 65, and/or 70), note that there is no consideration of unique individual property aspects of function/feature/finish/quality/material/groupings that the present application terms token features 100, 105 that do have a market influence upon property value 235 as described in this specification.”, Fig. 34 and paragraphs 66 and 199);
g) providing the appraisal report to the requester via the network (Fig. 34).
Smith does not disclose but AVRAHAMI discloses
including using AI image recognition software to compare photographs
(AVRAHAM Ithat is in the business of efficient real state valuation, abstract.
AVRAHAMI discloses, “[0135] The automated EP′ may be based on the combination of all or any subset of the following three processes: [0136] Room Image recognition [0137] The system may employ AI technologies for this purpose. For example, the system may use neural network to analyze house images including identification of the level of renovation of key rooms (in the sense of being rooms which affect home value more than other rooms) in a house sale transaction, e.g. bathrooms and/or kitchen. The process may also recognize the style of the house and/or general conditions that factored in the modification of EP to EP′. For example, using existing photos of different properties which are either recently renovated or not [to compare photographs], and are tagged accordingly (labeled as renovated or not) by human experts; then, a neural network may be trained to classify the renovation status. The trained neural network may be applied for new photos of newly introduced properties, and evaluate them as required.”, paragraph135-137).
including accessing a second third party generative AI tool
([0181] Generally, a multiple listing service (MLS, also multiple listing system or multiple listings service) includes a suite of services that real estate brokers use to establish contractual offers of compensation (among brokers) and accumulate and disseminate information to enable appraisals. Typically, MLS includes basic data such as: price, location, house type, # bedroom # bathroom etc. Enrichment of this basic data may be performed using known tools such as all or any subset of the software tools appearing in the table of FIGS. 9a-9b.
[0195] Additionally, the system may, e.g. to facilitate EP computation, employ image recognition on the listing images to infer the features about the house. For example, Restb.ai may be used; the system may infer, from images, the house condition, room type (e.g., bathroom/kitchen) and also house type (e.g., Mediterranean). This may be used for estimating house condition and/or for generating similarity scores.
[0196] According to certain embodiments, an operation is provided which uses restb.ai-generated house features, to compute house condition. Alternatively or in addition, an operation is provided which uses restb.ai-generated house features, to compute similarity. Alternatively or in addition, an operation is provided which gets “house condition” and/or “similarity” as an input, and uses these input/s to compute a house price”, see at least paragraphs 181, 195 and 196 and FIGS. 9a-9b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate AVRAHAM’s teaching with the teaching of Smith. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to include AI image recognition software to compare photographs such as “For example, the system may use neural network to analyze house images including identification of the level of renovation of key rooms (in the sense of being rooms which affect home value more than other rooms) in a house sale transaction”, and include access to a second third party generative AI tool, For example, Restb.ai that may be used to infer, from images, the house condition, room type (e.g., bathroom/kitchen) and also house type (e.g., Mediterranean), the use of these tools for estimating house condition and/or for generating similarity scores. (see AVRAHAM paragraph135-137 )
As to claim 2, Smith discloses
wherein the subject property data set further comprises at least one comparable property address.
(“Address of property.”, paragraph 89).
As to claims 3 and 16, Smith discloses
wherein the comparable property data set comprises at least one selected from the group including: property square footage, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, city, state, zip code, subject property images, home type, property title type, design, property age, basement and finishings, utilities, heating/cooling garage/carport, porch/patio/deck, sales price, neighborhood descriptions, proximity to schools/municipalities.
(See also Figs. 20 and 21 and associated disclosure, paragraphs 52-53).
As to claim 4, Smith discloses
wherein the subject property data set comprises at least one selected from the group including: property square footage, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, city, state, zip code, subject property images, home type, property title type, design, property age, basement and finishings, utilities, heating/cooling garage/carport, porch/patio/deck, sales price, neighborhood descriptions, proximity to schools/municipalities.
(see “Age of property” paragraph 89. See also Figs. 20 and 21 and associated disclosure, paragraphs 52-53).
As to claims 5 and 17, Smith discloses ,[… wherein the AI image recognition software detects and labels…] at least one selected from the group including: appliances, materials, room types, condition and quality of construction, deferred maintenance, evidence of water infiltration, unidentified black substance, evidence of deterioration, and infestation for each of the subject property data set and respective comparable property data set.
(see “Age of appliances”, paragraph 89.
“[0093] Flood plane.
General condition of property.
Heating system”, paragraph 93).
Smith does not disclose but AVRAHAMI discloses
wherein the AI image recognition software detects and labels
(“[0135] The automated EP′ may be based on the combination of all or any subset of the following three processes: [0136] Room Image recognition [0137] The system may employ AI technologies for this purpose. For example, the system may use neural network to analyze house images including identification of the level of renovation of key rooms (in the sense of being rooms which affect home value more than other rooms) in a house sale transaction, e.g. bathrooms and/or kitchen. The process may also recognize the style of the house and/or general conditions that factored in the modification of EP to EP′. For example, using existing photos of different properties which are either recently renovated or not, and are tagged accordingly (labeled as renovated or not) …”, paragraph 135-137)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate AVRAHAM’s teaching with the teaching of Smith. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to include AI image recognition software to compare photographs and tagging and labeling photos of different properties in order to support image recognition process for an efficient real state valuation(see AVRAHAM paragraph135-137 ).
As to claims 7 and 19, Smith discloses
wherein the sales comparison approach is determined by a weight calculated from the second data set gross adjustment percentages and the number of the at least one comparable property used as represented by the formula:
(Smith discloses adjusted sales price of comparable properties, “…In Dugan, with this the appraiser can average the adjusted sale price of all the comparable properties to be used as an appraised value of the subject property, which can be combined with other appraisal methodologies”, paragraph 18.
“[0036] FIG. 4 flows from FIG. 3 if five or more properties are qualified into the first qualified assemblage wherein a trend adjustment is made for price change over time and a ratio adjustment is made for sold price to original asking price, wherein the automated real estate valuation system calculates a value for the selected specific property using the input attributes, primary token features, input data sets, and secondary token features, further if a list price is available for the selected specific property it would be used to adjust the calculated value depending upon the difference as between the list price and the calculated value”, paragraph 36 and Figs. 3-4.
Further, Smith discloses number of comparable properties, See element 205 in Fig. 2.
Smith discloses a weight calculated from the second data set gross adjustment percentages , “0018] Continuing, in the prior art in yet another computer implemented method for determining property value is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,857,174 to Dugan that discloses both to a manual and computer based method of appraising real estate. In Dugan, FIG. 3 depicts the method going towards FIG. 4 for the general process or FIG. 5 to revise a record wherein the appraiser and the property buyer assign points (termed ideal point system or IPS) based upon desirability factors for five categories of elements for weighting purposes to the that property as a comparable property. Thus in Dugan the appraiser can select a subject property and obtain the IPS values for the seller of the property, wherein the sale price of each comparable property is adjusted based on the relative difference between the total IPS value for the comparable properties and the total IPS value of the subject property. In Dugan, with this the appraiser can average the adjusted sale price of all the comparable properties to be used as an appraised value of the subject property, which can be combined with other appraisal methodologies”, paragraph 18.
“…a user may adjust the ranking of comparable properties then apply a weighting value method to the ranked comparable properties with manually input property weights, with default weights available to be saved and reused. Further, in Kim the appraiser may add characteristics to the property to improve the description of the property, to increase the odds of finding additional similar comparable properties. In Kim the user can specify high weight items such as “new furnace”, wherein the valuation engine assigns condition points to the furnace condition based upon the estimated cost to build, replace, or renovate, also geographic output is given for relative locations of comparable properties and the subject property”, paragraph 20.
Smith discloses as represented by a formula, “[0110] The selected specific property 55 calculated output value 235 is derived through the valuation algorithm 230 that is preferably the Random-Forest-Regression analysis of all physical characteristics being the input attributes 90 and input data sets 95 (such as square feet size and bedroom count), along with the emotional triggers that are termed the primary 100 and secondary 105 token features as discovered through text analysis comparing a property's text description and inclusions to a tokenized proprietary lexicon of key terms, being the primary 100 and secondary 105 token features initially for all properties in the first qualified assemblage 205 for the specific tract of land 75. The final value output 235 is a dollar value based on all of these factors and their correlation to the sold, under contract, or listing value of properties 60, 65, or 70. Once the calculated dollar value 235 is derived for the selected specific property 55 then it is placed within a specific subset of the range of all calculated values 235 for the specific tract of land 75, referred to as a QValue, see FIGS. 10, 11, 20, 21, and 30. The total range of all base values (wherein the calculated output value 235 is derived from) per square foot for each property 60, 65, and/or 70 is analyzed through the K-Means algorithm to determine a series of clusters along the range of values 235, see FIGS. 10, 11, 20, 30, 31, and 32. These resulting clusters are each referred to as QValues, which may range in number from three to eleven based on the volume of properties 60, 65, or 70 within the total set analyzed and the spread of the gross range of calculated values per square foot of the properties 60, 65, or 70”, paragraph 110).
Smith does not expressly disclose
PNG
media_image2.png
290
1100
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But from Smith’s teaching of adjusted sales price of comparable properties, paragraphs 18 and 36 and Figs. 3-4; number of comparable properties, See element 205 in Fig. 2; a weight calculated from the second data set gross adjustment percentages, paragraphs 18 and 20; represented by a formula, paragraph 110.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the just mentioned elements “adjusted sales price of comparable properties; number of comparable properties; a weight calculated from the second data set gross adjustment percentages, and representation by a formula, since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e. combination of elements) to the recognized need (efficient real state valuation) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (pricing a property for sale or determining a property's value for a potential investment)
As to claim 8, Smith discloses,
wherein the sales comparison approach evaluates information provided according to the Uniform Appraisal Dataset (UAD) standard.
(“FIG. 34 shows a prior art sample of a portion of a standard appraisal report”, paragraph 66).
As to claim 13, Smith discloses, wherein the appraisal report is a .[…downloadable…] formatted electronic file.
(“FIG. 34 shows a prior art sample of a portion of a standard appraisal report…”, paragraph 66 and Fig. 34) .
Smith does not disclose .[…downloadable…] but discloses “FIG. 33 shows a flow schematic diagram of the remote host server computer, the data communication structure, the local control module, the local host interface component, and the local human perceptible interface device as one of the means of using the present invention”, paragraph 65 and Fig. 33. Therefore, it would have been obvious to conclude, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the data communication structure has download capability in order to offer full data communication structure.
As to claim 14, Smith discloses,
wherein the appraisal report is displayed on a graphical user interface on the network connected computing device.
(“…another goal of the present invention is to overcome the substantial time period a manual valuation by an appraiser or broker/agent would take by automating the vast majority of steps needed to complete a valuation, and nearly instantly offering the same information via a database and/or the internet….”, paragraph 27.
“[0065] FIG. 33 shows a flow schematic diagram of the remote host server computer, the data communication structure, the local control module, the local host interface component, and the local human perceptible interface device as one of the means of using the present invention”, paragraph 65 and FIG. 33).
Claims 9, 10, 11 and 12, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pg. No. 20160292800 (Smith) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20200402116 (AVRAHAMI) and in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20160171564 (Carroll).
As to claims 9 and 20, Smith does not disclose but Carroll discloses
wherein the income approach is determined using a gross rent multiplier multiplied by an estimated monthly market rent amount.
(Carroll that is in the business of “…method for analyzing a subject appraisal detects discrepancies and determines likely causes….”, abstract and “…generally to automated analysis of price appraisal data…”, paragraph 2.
“…FIG. 3 illustrates a form 300 for use in an income approach. Although illustrated in FIGS. 1-3 as separate forms 100-300, the three forms may be combined into a master form comprising one or more of forms 100-300 as sub-sections, and may further include additional sub-sections”, paragraph 29.
“0038] The income form 300 illustrated in FIG. 3 includes a property characteristic column 310 corresponding to an estimated monthly rental income to be derived from the subject property, as well as a multiplier column 320 corresponding a gross rent multiplier indicative of the number of months of rental income needed to earn back the property value. The gross rent multiplier may be calculated from similar properties at the time of sale; for example, by dividing the price of a recent sale by that property's current monthly rent. The value of estimated monthly rental income is multiplied by the gross rent multiplier to calculate an appraised value under the income approach”, paragraph 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Carroll’s teaching with the teaching of Smith. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to use a cost approach or income approach in order to offer collection of appraisal data.
As to claims 10 and 11, Smith does not disclose but Carroll discloses
Claim 10:
wherein the gross rent multiplier is calculated by dividing the indicated value based on the sales comparison approach by the estimated monthly market rent.
(“…The gross rent multiplier may be calculated from similar properties at the time of sale; for example, by dividing the price of a recent sale by that property's current monthly rent….”, paragraph 10) .
Claims 11:
wherein the estimated monthly market rent amount is determined from the comparable data set.
(“…The value of estimated monthly rental income is multiplied by the gross rent multiplier to calculate an appraised value under the income approach.
[0041] In a first example, the present disclosure provides a method for comparing multiple appraisals on the same subject property “, paragraphs 38 and 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Carroll’s teaching with the teaching of Smith. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to use a cost approach or income approach in order to support collection of appraisal data.
As to claims 12 and 21, Smith does not disclose but Carroll discloses
wherein the cost approach is calculated by taking thirty percent of the indicated value computed using the sales comparison approach.
(“FIG. 2 illustrates a form 200 for use in a cost approach”, paragraph 29.
“..Based on an appropriately weighted average of these adjusted prices, the appraiser calculates an appraised value for the subject property under the sales comparison approach…”, paragraph 33.
“[0037] For example, if the subject property requires repairs, an amount may be indicated for physical depreciation. Additionally, if the subject property contains adverse design features such as a bedroom which can only be accessed from another bedroom, an amount may be indicated for functional depreciation. Furthermore, if the subject property abuts an adverse location such as a shopping mall or a heavily trafficked road, an amount may be indicated for external depreciation. The result of the above calculations results in an appraised value under the cost approach”, paragraph 37).
Carroll does not expressly disclose thirty percent of the indicated value computed using the sales comparison approach, but from Carrol’s teaching of cost approach and sales comparative approach, it would have been obvious to try, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the just mentioned elements to arrive to the claimed language, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known elements and the results would have been predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 01/28/2026 have been very carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (remarks 10-13)
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
U.S Pub. No. 2016/0292800 (Smith) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0402116 (Avrahami). The
Examiner rejected claims 9-12, 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Smith in view
of Avrahami and in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/017111564 to Carroll ("Carroll"). This rejection
is respectfully traversed….
In response the Examiner asserts that the instant claims do not have novelty at all. The Examiner respectfully notes that applicant has not provided persuasive rebuttal evidence to overcome the prima facie case. Further, the elements of this instant Application are old and well known at the time of the invention. The combination set for the rejection produce results that are predictable. The search conducted shows that there is lack of novelty on the claimed invention therefore there is a loss of the right to a patent. The prior art read on the no novelty and obvious claims.
Smith fails to teach or suggest "receiving over a network an appraisal request, the appraisal
request including a subject property data set, the subject property data set including a subject
property address, and subject property information extracted from at least one subject
property photograph, and at least one of a purchase agreement and/or an engagement letter"
(emphasis added) as recited in claim 1 and similarly claim 15. Claims 1 and 15 recite a listing of
comparable real estate properties, with each requiring three pieces of information: a property
address, a subject property photograph and a purchase agreement and/or engagement letter. Smith fails to disclose these limitations. The system in Smith explicitly states that the "sole user manual input is what particular property they want a value calculated on". Smith at para. [0072]. Smith is limited to disclosing a system that receives nothing more than the property address. A such, Smith fails to disclose a system that extracts information about the subject property from the purchase agreement and/or engagement letter as recited in claims 1 and 15. Not only does Smith fail to disclose extracting information from a purchase agreement and/or engagement letter, Smith fail to disclose extracting subject property information from at least one subject property photograph.
In response the Examiner asserts that the combination of references in the prima facie of obviousness established in this case is strong prior art.
The allegations are not true because, first of all, the prima facie teaches abundant subject property information or data, see at least “[0028] Broadly, the present invention is of an automated real estate valuation system for a selected specific property [subject property], the present invention includes a direct physical selected specific property input attributes database that is existing being affixed to the selected specific property, the attributes database includes a plurality of input attributes that are fixed, tangible, and existing for the selected specific property that is disposed within a specific tract of land. Further included in the automated real estate valuation system is a plurality of primary token features associated with the selected specific property that are within the specific tract of land”, paragraph 28.
“[0089] A plurality of direct physical selected specific property input attributes 90 forming a database, the input attributes database 90 is existing for the selected specific property 55 that are affixed to the selected specific property 55…wherein each one of the following is defined as an item of the input attributes database 90 …Address of property…Text, photo, video, and audio of the property.”, paragraph 89 and Fig. 6.
Secondly, Smith’s system teaches generation of a specific property appraisal or valuation based on data currently available in databases that the Examiner interprets as data extracted from,“[0072] An automatic property valuation model, system, or process that uses data based values available from numerous sources … wherein property values are determined on a mass basis for multiple properties wholly through an automated system gathering data, processing the data, and outputting a calculated property value, wherein the sole user manual input is what particular property they want a value calculated on. Although the data based values can be specific to a property from databases that reflect direct physical property attributes or input data sets 95 or attributes 90 (bedrooms, bathrooms, etc.), geographically based property attributes (proximity to amenities-banks, stores, etc.) which are common within a specific tract of land 75, and subjective more emotion based token features 100, 105 (finish, materials, appliances, etc.) being the non-geographical property features, all of which play a role in the value of the property 55. In other words, the true AVM is completely self-contained to generate a specific property valuation based on currently available databases without human intervention based solely upon a value manually requested for a specific property by a user”, paragraph 72 and elements 55, 75 and 65,70 of Fig. 2.
Lastly, Smith’s system teaches “…Address of property…Text, photo, video, and audio of the property.”, paragraph 89.
In summary, Smith’s system has wide possession of “subject property information”. See at least just cited prior art. Also, Smith’s system has possession of “purchase agreement” because Smith’s system has contract information for all the properties in the selected tract of land of the subject property, including the specific selected property, see at least elements 55, 75 and 65,70 of Fig. 2. Furthermore, it is usually given very low patentable weight to where the data is extracted from, the reference is provided for the sake of compact prosecution.
The Examiner cites the use of "contracts" in Smith (see Office Action at p. 11), presumably
to show that Smith discloses the use of a purchase agreement and/or engagement letter, as recited
in claims 1 and 15. However, the Examiner is mistaken. The use of the term "contract" in Smith
relates to properties under contact to be sold within a certain proximity of the subject property. See
Smith at para. [0034]. Smith does not disclose the claimed purchase agreement and/or an
engagement letter. Smith does not disclose the ability of the system to analyze the contract itself,
nor does it specify what data in included in the contract or provide any information about the
contract. The Examiner mistakenly conflates the concept of a property being under "contract" as
described in Smith with a purchase agreement and/or an engagement letter for the sale of a property
as claimed. As such, Smith fails to disclose a system that extracts subject property information
from a purchase agreement and/or an engagement letter as recited in claims 1 and 15.
In response the Examiner asserts that the prima facie of obviousness established in this case is solid prior art. Again, applicant is wrongly taking citations of the prior art out of context arguing for the sake of argument.
The prima facie established in this case not only ample discuses “contract information”, but also “subject property information”.
Smith’s system has contract information for all the properties in the selected tract of land, including the specific selected property, see at least elements 55, 75 and 65,70 of Fig. 2. Furthermore, it usually given very low patentable weight to where the data is extracted from, the reference is provided for the sake of compact prosecution. Next, Smith’s system teaches specific property [subject property], see at least paragraphs 28 and 89. The Examiner is not in error, the prima facie established in this case has plenty of evidence.
Regarding to the allegation “ …Smith does not disclose the ability of the system to analyze the contract itself, nor does it specify what data in included in the contract or provide any information about the contract….”, it seems that applicant is arguing limitations that are not in the instant claims.
Further, Smith fails to teach or suggest a system with the capability to access "a multiple
listing service (MLS) database to obtain ... a plurality of comparable property addresses, a
plurality of comparable property photographs, and a plurality of sales reports for a plurality of
comparable properties …In addition, Smith fails to teach or suggest a system capable of "querying a first third party generative AI tool with some of the comparable property data set to obtain additional details for the subject property data set" as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claim 15…Furthermore, Smith fails to teach or suggest "generating an appraisal report including the
subject property data set, the comparable property data set and the indicated value, including
accessing a second third party generative AI tool to assist in formatting some of the data included
in the appraisal report according to well-known standards"…
In response the Examiner asserts that these allegations are not true because the prima facie of obviousness discloses all the limitations in the claims.
Examiner advised that having no novelty claims and arguing intensely is not the path to advance prosecution of the instant case but for sure to delay its prosecution since the application has effective filing date (EFD) = 08/02/2024, where the field of search of listing of comparable real estate properties is very well known at the time of the invention. Moreover, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant argues (remarks 8-10)
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory
subject matter. This rejection is respectfully traversed…The undersigned therefore traverses the rejection of these claims as directed to an abstract
idea because they "pose no comparable risk of pre-emption [of the underlying blocks of human
ingenuity]." Even the Supreme Court guidance on this issue recognizes that only "some methods
of organizing human activity" fall into this category. Here, they do not.
The Examiner identified the alleged abstract idea as "methods of organizing human
activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors." There are substantial
limitations in the claims that differentiate them from the broad, general idea of "organizing
human activity."…
In response the Examiner asserts that the instant application is in compliance with the utility requirement. The claimed invention has a readily apparent well-established utility (see MPEP 2107). But, per MPEP 2106 an invention also must have to comply with the Subject Matter Eligibility test under Alice framework, see “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). The instant claims are directed to an abstract idea. None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination, provides eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claim simply instruct the practitioner to implement an abstract idea with routine, conventional technology. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible (see complete and facially sufficient analysis of the rejection above).
Additionally, this case is not rejected under 101 only because the invention ability to run on a general purpose computer, but also because the detail facially sufficient analysis provided above, where the Examiner looked both the instant claims and the specification to elaborate Examiner's facially sufficient analysis. The Identified abstract idea in the instant claims is “A method for objectively providing a listing of comparable real estate properties.” The additional elements identified in the instant claims are “by a software application executing on at least one server having a processor and memory”, “over a network “, “a multiple listing service (MLS) database”, “a first third party generative AI tool”, “including accessing a second third party generative AI tool “, “via the network”, “subject property information extracted from at least one of a purchase agreement and/or an engagement letter;” “assigning an indicated value determined using at least one of a sales comparison approach, an income approach, and/or a cost approach, the sales comparison approach using the square footage measurement and the gross living area measurement;” these elements
do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea identified above, as the additional elements do not: Improve another technology or technical field; Improve the functioning of a computer itself; Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field; Add meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment; Improve computer related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. (see MPEP 2106.05). So pre-emption is not the only consideration when applying the 2019 PEG test.
Both claims 1 and 15 also recite the system's ability to obtain information for comparable
properties. In identifying comparable properties, the system is capable of self-assessing a number
of comparable properties to then select applicable comparable properties for further review and
analysis. See [0047-0048] of the pending application. These actions are not abstract. Because the
claims recite substantial features and functionality, the claims are not an abstract idea akin
to the broad, general idea of "gathering data" and therefore, the claims are patentable…
In response the Examiner asserts that a prima facie of unpatentability has been established. The instant claims are not eligible for patent protection because the prima facie of unpatentability established in this case. The Examiner looked both the instant claims and the specification to elaborate Examiner's facially sufficient analysis above. The Examiner considered each limitation or element in the claims individually and as a whole according with the guidelines published in published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). The 101 analysis presented above is facially sufficient, and presents why the elements in the claims are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and also are considered to be no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Without accepting that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the undersigned
addresses the remainder of the rejection in order to further prosecution. Specifically, even if the
claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims recite meaningful limitations beyond "mere
instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application." See Office Action at page 5. The claims recite, among other features, a method for objectively providing a listing of comparable real estate properties that includes a "server having a processor and memory", and "database", as recited in claim 1 and additionally as in claim 15 a "storage medium" and "processor." Respectfully, the Examiner fails to address whether the claimed functionality viewed in light of the specification entails an improvement in technology and thus fails to establish that the independent claims fail to integrate…..The Examiner overlooks the combination of the hardware and software components recited in claim 1, and how these elements work together in a specific and integrated manner with the self-assessment technology, and comparative analysis features to provide a solution that addresses shortcomings in conventional systems…
In response the Examiner asserts that the Examiner considered each limitation or element in the claims individually and as a whole according with the guidelines published in published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c).
Again, the 101 analysis presented above is facially sufficient, and presents why the elements in the claims are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and also are considered to be no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding to the argument “The Examiner overlooks the combination of the hardware and software components recited in claim 1, and how these elements work together in a specific and integrated manner with the self-assessment technology, …”, the Examiner did not overlook the claims. Again all the limitation and elements in the claims were considered individually and as a whole according with the guidelines published in published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c).
The claims recite specific actions and analyses that describe in substantial detail the
elements that make up the claimed method. As these actions and analyses appear in the claims, it
is respectfully submitted that the claims cannot be described as merely an abstract idea. Instead,
there is "significantly more," as required by Alice. The detailed, claimed actions and analyses are
much more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component….
In response the Examiner asserts that the degree of detail present in the claims informs whether the claims are patent eligible. As the Supreme Court has explained, it must be determined whether the limitations in "the patent claims," taken as a whole, "add enough" in the way of specific, practical application to differentiate the scope of the claimed invention from the underlying abstract idea itself. The Examiner asserts that because the facially sufficient analysis above, the additional elements to the abstract idea identified in this case, are a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Standardizing appraisals for PV installations”. IEEE. 2014. This publication discloses, “As PV installations increase across the U.S., there will be a point when an appraiser will have the opportunity to value the PV system as part of a property sale or re-finance. Proper valuation techniques as applied to solar PV are necessary to reflect the increase in market demand for solar PV systems. Appraisers must follow the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP) when valuing solar PV systems, which means that appraisers must gain competency to 1) accurately recognize the value proposition of a PV system, and 2) develop the PV system's market value as it contributes to the property. The challenges currently faced by property owners with installed PV are whether the PV system adds market value to the property, and finding an appraiser with competency. Not all markets are the same, and PV market values will vary considerably based on many factors that include, but are not limited to the adoption rate in the particular market, the utility rate paid by the customer, the PV system's condition, aesthetics, and obsolescence. This paper will discuss how past challenges with respect to proper PV system valuation are being addressed in a standard fashion, along with the far-reaching benefits that may be available to future PV adopters as valuation concepts are ultimately recognized and adopted by valuation professionals, real estate agents, mortgage lenders and underwriters”.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MARIA VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on business hours from Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 4/11/2026
Prosecution Insights