DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this instant application per claim amendments and remarks filed on 01/22/2026. Claims 1-4 and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent claims reciting system, method and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims. Claims 2-18 are dependent claims.
This Office Action is a final rejection in response to the claim amendments and the remarks filed by the Applicant on 22 JANUARY 2026 for its original application of 08 AUGUST 2024 that is titled: “Assessment Tool. Graphical User Interface, and Associated Functionality”.
Replacement sheets for Figs. 1-17 (9 pages) submitted on 01/22/2026 have been considered and entered.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are now being rejected herein.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 01/22/2026 are shown as underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown.)
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent system, method and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a system reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of a property assessment system comprised of: obtain at least one of a map or an image of the plurality of [[plurality of [[plurality of [[plurality of [[interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. Based on para [0079]/FIG. 20 reciting --- {“The property list is displayed in rank order according to, for example, assessment rank (e.g., good insurance risk, fair insurance risk, poor insurance risk, etc.).”}, these limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: circuitry configured to obtain predetermined data for a plurality of [[, the predetermined data including at least physical condition data corresponding to the plurality of properties; and display the list of the plurality of [[one or more]] properties in conjunction with the map or image of the plurality of [[one or more]] properties. The system, circuitry and display devices in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Accordingly, 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, to include the latest claim amendments, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements of: circuitry configured to obtain predetermined data for one or more properties; and display the list of the one or more properties in conjunction with the map or image of the one or more properties, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these devices (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, paras [0098]-[00100] and [00104]-[00105] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“[0098] Computer 1605 may be a personal computer (PC), a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, netbook computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smart phone, or any other programmable electronic device capable of communicating with other devices on network 1610. …………………………………………………………………………………………….
[0099] Computer 1605 may include processor 1635, bus 1637, memory 1640, non-volatile storage 1645, network interface 1650, peripheral interface 1655 and display interface 1665. Each of these functions may be implemented, in some embodiments, as individual electronic subsystems (integrated circuit chip or combination of chips and associated devices), or, in other embodiments, some combination of functions may be implemented on a single chip (sometimes called a system on chip or SoC). ………………………………………………………………….
[00100] Processor 1635 may be one or more single or multi-chip microprocessors, such as those designed and/or manufactured by Intel Corporation, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), Arm Holdings (Arm), Apple Computer, etc. Examples of microprocessors include Celeron, Pentium, Core 13, Core i5 and Core i7 from Intel Corporation; Opteron, Phenom, Athlon, Turion and Ryzen from AMD; and Cortex-A, Cortex-R and Cortex-M from Arm. Processors are considered processing circuitry or circuitry as they include transistors and other circuitry therein. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
[00104] Computer 1605 may be capable of communicating and interacting with other computers via network 1610 through network interface 1650. Network 1610 may be, for example, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN) such as the Internet, or a combination of the two, and may include wired, wireless, or fiber optic connections. In general, network 1610 can be any combination of connections and protocols that support communications between two or more computers and related devices. ………………………..
[00105] Peripheral interface 1655 may allow for input and output of data with other devices that may be connected locally with computer 1605. For example, peripheral interface 1655 may provide a connection to external devices 1660. External devices 1660 may include devices such as a keyboard, a mouse, a keypad, a touch screen, and/or other suitable input devices. External devices 1660 may also include portable computer-readable storage media such as, for example, thumb drives, portable optical or magnetic disks, and memory cards. Software and data used to practice embodiments of the present disclosure, for example, program 1648, may be stored on such portable computer-readable storage media. In such embodiments, software may be loaded onto non-volatile storage 1645 or, alternatively, directly into memory 1640 via peripheral interface 1655. Peripheral interface 1655 may use an industry standard connection, such as RS- 232 or Universal Serial Bus (USB), to connect with external devices 1660.”} ---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, to include the latest claim amendments, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent system claim 19 and independent non-transitory computer readable medium claim 20, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent claims 2-18, further narrow the independent claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., wherein the assessments of the plurality of [[one of the plurality of [[and a time of the event based on the change in the status change; ……… wherein the predetermined data includes property location, property imagery, and property records; ……… wherein the real-time data includes aerial imagery, lidar data, or both; ……… wherein the real-time data includes aerial imagery, lidar data, or both; ……… wherein the circuitry generates the descriptions using artificial intelligence; ……… wherein the circuitry is configured to display a marker in a region of the property pertaining to the on-site data on the image of the property; ……… wherein the on-site information is displayed as a pop-up window overlay and includes buttons to assign an associated task or reject the on-site information; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent system Claim 1, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. The Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over a combination of references (VanKirk, Berry and Gross for independent and other claims, and Crabtree and Martin for some dependent claims) described below for each claim/ limitation.
Independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2005/ 0160033 filed by VanKirk et al. (hereinafter “VanKirk”) in view of Pub. No. US 2013/ 0103595 filed by Berry et al. (hereinafter “Berry”), and further in view of Pub. No. US 2015/ 0213315 filed by Gross, John Nicolas (hereinafter “Gross”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
Examiner notes that all claims have been copied as recited by the Applicant to keep them readable and whole, even if the limitations within a claim that are not taught explicitly by the primary/previous reference (are noted in parentheses), but these limitations are noted explicitly as taught by a secondary/new reference whenever a secondary/new reference has been used.
Examiner notes that, for brevity in this rejection, the motivation statement has not been repeated herein every time a secondary reference has been used.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 01/22/2026 are shown as underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown.)
With respect to Claim 1, VanKirk teaches ---
1. A property assessment system, comprising:
circuitry configured to
(obtain predetermined data) for a plurality of [[, (the predetermined data) including at least (physical condition data) corresponding to the plurality of properties;
(see at least: VanKirk Abstract and Summary of the Invention in paras [0007]-[0011]; and para [0002] about {“The present invention relates to computer systems, and more particularly, but not exclusively, relates to systems for aiding property assessment.”}; and para [0007] about {“One form of the present invention is a computer system. Other forms include unique systems and methods to aid commercial property assessment.”}; and para [0044] about {“…… One or more components of each processor may be of the electronic variety defining digital circuitry, analog circuitry, or both. In one embodiment, each processor is of a conventional, integrated circuit microprocessor arrangement, …”}; and para [0053] about {“…… In one embodiment, database (34 or 46) also stores information related to the specific property assessments performed with system 20 and/or system 40 as described in further detail herein. In another embodiment, a separate database is used to store information related to the specific property assessments performed with users of system 20 and/or system 40.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘property assessment system’, ‘circuitry’ and ‘one or more properties’)
VanKirk teaches as disclosed above, but it may not explicitly disclose about ‘obtain predetermined data/the predetermined data’. However, Berry teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Berry Abstract and Summary of the Invention in paras [0007]-[0009]; and para [0004] about {“Automated valuation models (AVM) have been developed to estimate property values. However, a typical AVM performs estimation based upon predetermined inflexible geographical data sets. This may not be especially useful for particular applications.”}; and para [0043] about {“……… The indicator determination and rendering module 214 is configured to ;manage which indicators should be indicated on the map image depending upon the current map image, the weighted ranking of the comparables and predetermined settings or user input. The property data grid/DB 216 manages the data set corresponding to a current session, including the subject property and pool of comparable properties. It is configured as a database that allows the property data for the properties to be displayed in a tabular or grid format, with various sorting according to the property characteristics, economic distance, geographical distance, time, etc.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘obtain predetermined data/ the predetermined data’)
It would have been obvious prior to the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ordinary person of skill in the art to modify the teachings of VanKirk with the teachings of Berry. The motivation to combine these references would be to provide improved systems and methods that ensure assessors only apply obsolescence where it actually exists and so assessors can identify when the discrepancy in value is due to some reason other than obsolescence (see para [0005] of VanKirk), and to provide AVM (Automated Valuation Models) systems that accommodate a more tailored approach to property value estimation (see para [0006] of Berry).
VanKirk and Berry teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘physical condition data’. However, Gross teaches it explicitly.
(see at least: Gross Abstract and Summary of the Invention in para [0009]; and FIGs. 1-2 and 10-13; and para [0056] about {“FIG. 2 illustrates the main processes 200 used in preferred embodiments of the disclosure, including broadly the two tasks of: 1) training the Classifier Engine 150 (FIGS. 1), and 2) using it to assess and rate different new properties. …”}; and para [0059] about {“In addition it is desirable to include image exemplars of the building elements or attributes in various physical conditions or impairment, which form is part of reference image set in database 144. The conditions/impairments are each associated with a particular building attribute. …”}; and para [0132] about {“…… Based on the assessment of individual elements, their condition, etc., and collectively over all the elements, an overall assessment or rating of the exterior physical condition can be assigned to the building structure. This rating or score can be normalized by reference to other specific buildings have the same architectural type as well for better comparison. A structure may be ranked or rated for condition relative to peer structures in an immediate, specified target region. "Peer" structures may include all structures, or a subset having the same architectural style, or a predetermined number of common features, etc. A "target region" may include a street, block, zip code, city, or any other desired benchmark.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘physical condition data’)
It would have been obvious prior to the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ordinary person of skill in the art to modify the teachings of VanKirk and Berry with the teachings of Gross. The motivation to combine these references would be to provide improved systems and methods that ensure assessors only apply obsolescence where it actually exists and so assessors can identify when the discrepancy in value is due to some reason other than obsolescence (see para [0005] of VanKirk), and to provide AVM (Automated Valuation Models) systems that accommodate a more tailored approach to property value estimation (see para [0006] of Berry), and to provide automated tools, methods and systems which assess the condition of living structures and other appurtenant real property features (see para [0006] of Gross).
VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
obtain at least one of a map or an image of the plurality of [[
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above; and Abstract about {“……… A subject property and corresponding properties within the defined geographic area are then displayed on a map image, preferably with articulation of the defined geographic area as the neighborhood of interest. …”}; and para [0008] about {“……… A subject property and corresponding properties within the defined geographic area are then displayed on a map image, preferably with demarcation of the defined geographic area as the neighborhood of interest. …”}; and para [0018] about {“FIG. 8A is a display diagram illustrating an example of a map image and corresponding property grid data for a list of comparable properties in a customized neighborhood determined by inclusion within a shape on the map image.”}; and para [0019] about {“FIG. 8B is a display diagram illustrating an example of a map image and corresponding property grid data for a list of comparable properties in a customized neighborhood determined by exclusion from a shape corresponding to an otherwise-defined geographic area.”}; and para [0028] about {“The comparable property analysis application 104a-c, 110 accesses and retrieves the property data from these resources in support of the modeling of comparable properties as well as the rendering of map images of subject properties and corresponding comparable properties, and the display of supportive data (e.g., in grid form) in association with the map images.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’)
VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
generate assessments for the plurality of [[
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and Abstract about {“A computer system and method is disclosed that aids assessors in valuing commercial real estate. To support their cost-based value, assessors use the system to generate an income-based value. …”}; and para [0008] about {“In one aspect of the invention, a system and method is disclosed that aids assessors in valuing commercial real estate. To support a cost-based value, assessors can use the system to generate an income-based value. …”}; and para [0052] about {“…… With system 40, client workstation 42 displays the user interface 45 and allows the assessor to access and use the assessment software. To support their cost-based value, assessors can use system 20 and/or system 40 to generate an income-based value. …”}; and para [0060] about {“The stages outlined in FIGS. 3-4 will now be further illustrated by referring to FIGS. 5-29, which are simulated screens of the assessment aiding software of system 20. This example illustrates how the user, such as an assessor, can use the system to generate an income based value for a property. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘generate assessments of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘obtain predetermined data’ and ‘one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’; and para [0129] about {“A visual assessment report 730 can be generated (see FIG. 7E) at step 550 (FIG. 5) which preferably identifies at least those attributes identified by the system as having some measure of damage, impairment, aging, weathering, etc., …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘generate assessments’)
VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
rank the plurality of [[
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and [0008] about {“….. At the broadest level, the system prompts assessors to input basic ranking criteria (building location, condition, age, etc.) to describe the property and some basic property data and the system then uses its database of specific market data to calculate an income value. …”}; and para [0009] about {“After the assessor ranks the property and inputs a few basic details regarding the property, the system calculates the income-based value. …”}; and para [0052] about {“……After ranking the property according to various criteria, the system uses its database (34 on FIG. 1, 46 on FIG. 2) of market-specific data to calculate an income value.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’)
VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
generate a list of the plurality of [[
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and para [0079] about {“Following determining of the economic distance, the comparable properties are weighted 912 in support of generating a ranking of the comparable properties according to the model. A preferred weighting entails a function inversely proportional to the economic distance, geographic distance and age of transaction (typically sale) of the comparable property from the subject property.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘generate a list …… based on the rank’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’; and para [0183] for ‘a ranked listing of structures’; and FIGs. 18A and 18B)
VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
display the list of the plurality of [[plurality of [[
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’; and para [0183] for ‘a ranked listing of structures’; and FIGs. 18A and 18B)
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over VanKirk in view of Berry and Gross as applied to the rejection of independent Claim 1 above, and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 2, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
2. The property assessment system of claim 1, wherein the assessments of the
plurality of [[one of the plurality of [[
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’; and para [0008] about {“.... At the broadest level, the system prompts assessors to input basic ranking criteria (building location, condition, age, etc.) to describe the property and some basic property data and the system then uses its database of specific market data to calculate an income value. …”}; and para [0056] about {“…… For example, a current assessment "as of" March 2002, would have, per the Assessment Manual, an actual date of value of Jan. 1, 1999. In this example, the cost-based value is "as of" Jan. 1, 1999. So, since the value generated by the system will be "as of" 2002, the system must trend this value in order to properly compare it to real estate market conditions "as of" Jan. 1, 1999. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘an indication of a condition of at least a part of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’)
With respect to Claim 4, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
4. The property assessment system of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive selection of a property of the plurality of [[
display property information corresponding to the property selected in conjunction with [[the image of the property; and
display a timeline of events pertaining to the property selected.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’; and para [0034] about {“The application 200 also includes program code for displaying a map image corresponding to the geographical area, and displaying indicators on the map image indicative of the subject property and at least one of the plurality of comparable properties, as well as ranking the plurality of comparable properties based upon the weighting, and displaying a text listing of the plurality of comparable properties according to the ranking.”}; AND para [0043] about {“...... It is configured as a database that allows the property data for the properties to be displayed in a tabular or grid format, with various sorting according to the property characteristics, economic distance, geographical distance, time, etc.”}; and para [0063] about {“…… At any given time the user may decide to adopt the currently-displayed image as the defined geographic area, and command is received 708 accordingly. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘an image of the property’ and ‘display a timeline of events’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’)
With respect to Claim 10, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
10. The property assessment system of claim 1, wherein the predetermined data includes property location, property imagery, and property records.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’; and para [0008] for “building location”, and about {“…… they can select a ranking for the property for different criteria (example: condition=fair, location=average, etc.). …”}; and para [0066] about {“…… The parameters used in required fields 161 and in the calculations are based on market specific data for the particular area the property is located in, such as the County.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘property location’; AND paras [0004], [0009], [0054], [0057] for “property record card/s”; and para [0070] for “property record card 224”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘property records’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘obtain predetermined data’ and ‘one or more properties’; and paras [0065] & [0069] for ‘the location of the subject property’; and para [0072] about {“…… preferably tailored at a geographical area of interest in which a subject property is located.”}; and para [0101] about {“A comparable property should be located in a relative vicinity of the subject and should be sold relatively recently; …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘property location’; AND citations listed above to include and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’ plus ‘an image of the property’; and para [0043] about {“…… The map image access module 212 accesses mapping functions and manages the depiction of the map images as well as the indicators of the subject property and the comparable properties. The indicator determination and rendering module 214 is configured to manage which indicators should be indicated on the map image depending upon the current map image, the weighted ranking of the comparables and predetermined settings or user input. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘property imagery’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’)
With respect to Claim 13, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
13. The property assessment system of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate descriptions for the one or more properties based on the predetermined data.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘circuitry’ and ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’; and para [0062] about {“When the user selects a category 112 from the drop-down list, further sub-categories 114 are displayed. In one embodiment, the property types and other drop-down lists described herein are supplied by an administrator who can update the descriptions as desired. …”}; and para [0064] about {“……An item description 140 is displayed for the selected criteria so the user can see further details on how to best rank the property for that criteria. …”}: which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘generate descriptions for the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘obtain predetermined data’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’; and para [0032] about {“…… A preferred AVM involves a regression based upon the property data, with the regression modeling the relationship between price and explanatory variables.”}; and para [0033] about {“A subject property and a plurality of comparable properties are identified, followed by determining a set of value adjustments for each of the plurality of comparable properties based upon differences in the explanatory variables between the subject property and each of the plurality of comparable properties. …”}; and para [0039] about {“…… The regression module 204 may implement any conventional code for carrying out the regression given the described explanatory variables and property data. ...”}; and para [0043] about {“The regression module 204 may implement any conventional code for carrying out the regression given the described explanatory variables and property data. …”}; and para [0073] about {“A regression 904 modeling the relationship between price and explanatory variables is then performed on the accessed data. Although various alternatives may be applied, a preferred regression is that described above, wherein the explanatory variables are the four property characteristics (GLA, lot size, age, number of bathrooms) as well as the categorical fixed effects (location, time, foreclosure status).”}; which together are the claimed limitations above to include ‘generate descriptions for the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’)
Dependent Claims 3, 6, 11-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over VanKirk in view of Berry and Gross as applied to the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4, 8-10 and 13 above, and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 3, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
3. The property assessment system of claim 2, wherein the part of the one of the plurality of [[
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’
and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’; and para [0063] for “Ceiling Height” that is similar to ‘a property roof’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’; and para [0006] for “top down aerial inspections of the roofs of structures”; and para [0008] for “home improvement goods and services, such as ……roofing”; and para [0056] for “each basic building attribute is captured, such as ……… roof {pitched, double pitched, hipped, flat, metal, tile, shingle, slate, parapet, dormer, mansard, fascia, brackets, eaves, pent, pediment, etc.} and so on).”; and para [0069] for “ a graphical image (photograph or electronic rendering) of a structure (e.g., a house) with a roof (feature) having missing tiles (condition) is preferably collected and included in the reference image set”; and para [0114] for “a structure (e.g., a house) with a roof (feature) having missing tiles (condition) is preferably collected and included in the reference image set.”; and para [0123] for “For example an attribute {roof} would be expected to have a certain attribute size/shape relative to the building structure and an attribute orientation.”; and para [0124] for “For example a roof attribute would be uncommon below a certain level (line 705) in a building structure.”; and para [0170] for “a roof portion of the structure”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a property roof’)
With respect to Claim 6, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
6. The property assessment system of claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further configured to display indications of property damage, property condition, and property boundaries on the image of the property.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’, ‘circuitry’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’; and para [0030] about {“A subject property and corresponding properties within the defined geographic area are then displayed on a map image, preferably with demarcation of the defined geographic area (i.e., highlighted boundaries) as the neighborhood of interest. …”}; and para [0036] about {“The application 200 provides various options for defining the geographic area. These include definition based upon the tract of the subject property (and adjacent tracts), based upon the displayed map image (i.e., the currently-displayed screen), a customizable shape that defines the perimeter of the defined geographic area, a customizable shape that defines an exclusion area, and distance from a subject property.”}: and para [0054] about {“…… The rendering 408 of the map image is then updated to include the subject property and the comparable properties so as to illustrate their relative locations. The boundaries of the defined geographic area may be retained in the map image rendering for appreciation that the comparables are within the desired neighborhood. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘property boundaries on the image of the property’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’ and ‘a property roof’; and Abstract; and para [0002] about {“The present invention relates to automated tools, methods and systems which assess the condition of living structures and other appurtenant real property features. The invention has particular utility in the areas of real estate prospecting, appraisals, insurance, targeted marketing, and similar domains.”}; and para [0004] about {“…… For example many homes are dilapidated or in poor condition as a result of owners being unable to maintain such properties (or attendant grounds) because of age, poor health, etc. …”}; and para [0020] about {“FIG. 11 identifies examples of structural features, parameters, conditions, etc. that can be identified, assessed, tagged, coded and stored for a particular building structure in a city block in accordance with embodiments of the present teachings;”}; and para [0021] about {“FIG. 12 identifies further examples of structural features, parameters, conditions, etc. that can be identified, assessed, tagged, coded and stored for another structure in a city block in accordance with embodiments of the present teachings;”}; and para [0049] about {“Structure/ Attribute/Condition Reference database 152--preferably contains reference list of structure types, attribute types, associated economic/physical impairments, scores, etc. to be discovered in target structures;”}; and para [0050] about {“Attribute/Condition--Feature databases/network 154--preferably contains computed models, templates or patterns developed by a classifier to identify correlations between specific structure attributes, conditions, and image features which can be used to identify specific attribute/condition associated with a particular structure;”}; and para [0059] about {“In addition it is desirable to include image exemplars of the building elements or attributes in various physical conditions or impairment, which form part of reference image set in database 144. The conditions/impairments are each associated with a particular building attribute. Each is also separately identified and classified to make them amenable to query. Thus at step 215 one or more examples of the following structure attributes or elements and related conditions pairs are defined:”}; and para [0063] about {“Body Structural {new, cracks/ holes, exposed beams, fire damage, warping, lean, foundation cracks, bricks missing/damaged, missing plaster, damaged flashing, gaps, exposed insulation}”}; and para [0079] about {“Building Stock images 142 (or other particular unknown target image presented in a list 232) along with a confidence score for each of N possible attributes, M possible conditions for each, and additional information such as an estimated location in the target image. Tentative structure classifications (architecture type, attributes, conditions, etc.) are identified at step 240 and then stored at step 250 along with unique structure id in database 140. …”}; and para [0092] about {“As is apparent from these clear examples, these elements represent tell tale signs or signatures of damage, aging, weathering, neglect, etc. to a building structure, and which can be readily identified in image data. …”}; and para [0096] about {“One further aspect that can be optionally employed in some embodiments is a remediation simulation function implemented by module 175. For example a user may find a target property that is in dilapidated condition, and may desire to understand better what such structure would look like if it were improved. …… The simulation can be controlled selectively to correct particular damage or attributes, such as facade/ siding cracks, paint irregularities, roof damage, etc. or other basic building elements. …”}; and para [0112] about {“…… The user can also be prompted to confirm information in database 142 concerning building attributes, associated conditions, etc., for a particular target property.”}; and para [0115] about {“…Structural element fields 410 including an identification of each structural element presented in the property, a condition of such element, a rating/weighting of such condition, and an image location for such particular element. …”}; and para [0117] about {“…. the invention derives a prediction of occupancy by comparing the property structural element conditions, scores, etc. against other known examples for properties in which the properties are confirmed occupied (at one end of the spectrum) and other examples in which the properties are confirmed vacant, abandoned, etc.”}; and para [0119] about {“FIG. 5 depicts an exemplary building attribute/condition assessment process 500 that employs image processing that is suitable for embodiments of the present invention. General aspects of the image processing are also shown in FIGS. 7A-7D.”}; and para [0131] about {“…… a human user is requested to confirm or verify the presence (and/or location) of certain building elements in the image that are impaired/damaged/aged/weathered, etc., to crowd-source the assessment of the target properties, or the reference templates used to rate the target properties.”}; and para [0132] about {“The final structure assessment data is then recorded at step 555 with the property information in database 142 as noted above. Based on the assessment of individual elements, their condition, etc., and collectively over all the elements, an overall assessment or rating of the exterior physical condition can be assigned to the building structure. This rating or score can be normalized by reference to other specific buildings have the same architectural type as well for better comparison. A structure may be ranked or rated for condition relative to peer structures in an immediate, specified target region. "Peer" structures may include all structures, or a subset having the same architectural style, or a predetermined number of common features, etc. A "target region" may include a street, block, zip code, city, or any other desired benchmark.”}; and para [0133] about {“By correlating each of the impairments to repair or improvement figures, and summing over all the attribute conditions, an overall estimate can also be generated to identify a cost to restore the building structure to a nominal target state. Using sales data for similar structures in a similar condition, and other similar parameters a purchase prospect score can also be assigned. This and similar data can be stored in database 142 as part of a structure rating 415. Since the image data is regularly updated, long term evaluations over defined time periods can be made as well to identify changes in a property condition.”}; and para [0145] about {“FIG. 12 identifies further examples of structural features, parameters, conditions, etc. that can be identified, assessed, tagged, coded and stored for another structure in a city block in accordance with embodiments of the present teachings. Information on the type of structure, the presence, type and condition of yards, articles, garages, number of stories, and building types can be collected. An electronic interface may be optionally configured primarily or solely for the purpose of identifying defects, wear or other hazards. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘property damage’ and ‘property boundaries’)
With respect to Claim 11, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
11. The property assessment system of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive real-time data from a remote sensor as part of the predetermined data; and
update the assessments based on the real-time data.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’
and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’; and para [0044] about {“.... Alternatively, when of a multi-component form, a processor may have one or more components located remotely relative to the others. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations to include ‘a remote sensor’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘obtain predetermined data’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’ and ‘a property roof’; and para [0191] about {“During step 2030, which may be done in real-time or off-line, a series of one or more project auctions are conducted …”}; and para [0224] about {“…… During step 2320 a verification challenge is then presented to the user by a verification computing system, which challenge may take any number of different forms and implicate different data types, user knowledge base(s) and real-time feedback.”}; and para [0227] about {“In yet other variants a user can be solicited to provide details about the structure (i.e., answer questions about features) or alternatively provide one or more real-time, time stamped photo(s) of the structure for verification purposes. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘receive real-time data’)
With respect to Claim 12, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
12. The property assessment system of claim 11, wherein the real-time data includes aerial imagery, lidar data, or both.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’ and ‘a property roof’ and ‘real-time data’; and para [0006] about {“...... all directed to simple overhead, top down aerial inspections of the roofs of structures. …”}; and para [0163] about {“…… For example it is expected that aerial drones, satellite, balloon and similar technology can be used in certain areas to easily capture structure image data from a variety of perspectives, and at different times. Because such devices can obtain image data different elevations, this will also facilitate building out a comprehensive image database. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘aerial imagery’)
With respect to Claim 15, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
15. The property assessment system of claim 4, wherein the predetermined data includes on-site data provided from a site visit to the property selected.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘obtain predetermined data’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’ and ‘a property roof’ and ‘real-time data’; and para [0193] for “collecting onsite information during an initial visit”; and para [0212] for “invite the owner with a designated code to visit an online site to see further information”; and para [0241] about {“…… When a second user visits the site later, there may be preexisting entries for the foliage in question which can be queried against to identify plants, flowers, trees, etc. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘on-site data’ provided from ‘a site visit’ to the property)
With respect to Claim 16, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
16. The property assessment system of claim 15, wherein the circuitry is configured
to display a marker in a region of the property pertaining to the on-site data on the image of the property.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’ and ‘on-site data’ provided from ‘a site visit’ to the property; and Abstract about {“ A property assessment system includes image processing logic configured to identify building structure attributes from image data and rate their associated condition. The outputs can include property condition ratings, occupancy predictions and similar scores.”}; and para [0113] about {“…… To collect information first hand on building stock inventory, mobile handset users can be solicited to directly rate the quality or aesthetic appeal of a building structure that they are viewing on location within interface 380 as well using any convenient scale. A frequency, average score, or popularity of buildings within a City or neighborhood captured in images can be identified with a heat map or other convenient visual indicator. …”}; and para [0115] about {“A property structure style field 405 identifies an architectural type (Victorian, Craftsman, etc.) as discussed earlier. Structural element fields 410 including an identification of each structural element presented in the property, a condition of such element, a rating/weighting of such condition, and an image location for such particular element. …”}; and para [0131] about {“…… verify the presence (and/or location) of certain building elements in the image that are impaired/ damaged/ aged/ weathered, etc., to crowd-source the assessment of the target properties, or the reference templates used to rate the target properties. …”}; and para [0170] about {“ At step 1740 an input coding overlay or coding template is presented to a human coder to facilitate annotating, scoring, etc. of a target structure image. …”}; and para [0171] about {“During step 1750 the input template is used by a coder to identify, classify and rate a condition of features in an image for a structure. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘display a marker in a region of the property’)
With respect to Claim 17, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
17. The property assessment system of claim 16, wherein the marker is interactive, and selection of the marker causes the circuitry to display the on-site information.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’, ‘on-site data’ provided from ‘a site visit’ to the property; and ‘display a marker in a region of the property’)
With respect to Claim 18, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
18. The property assessment system of claim 17, wherein the on-site information is
displayed as a pop-up window overlay and includes buttons to assign an associated task or reject the on-site information.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’, ‘on-site data’ provided from ‘a site visit’ to the property; and ‘display a marker in a region of the property’; and para [0112] about {“…… These can be presented as drop-down menus to form a final query that is then processed by Lead Generation Engine 160 to retrieve corresponding entries. The entries can then be presented as noted earlier in map form, listing form, etc. with any desired accompanying data. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘displayed as a pop-up window overlay and includes buttons to assign an associated task’)
Dependent Claims 5, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over VanKirk in view of Berry and Gross as applied to the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, & 15-18 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2010/ 0332373 filed by Crabtree et al. (hereinafter “Crabtree”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 5, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
5. The property assessment system of claim 4, wherein the timeline includes at least
one predictive event pertaining to the property selected, the predictive event being (determined through extrapolation of past and current events) on the timeline of the property selected.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’ plus ‘display a timeline of events’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’, ‘on-site data’ provided from ‘a site visit’ to the property; and ‘display a marker in a region of the property’)
VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘determined through extrapolation of past and current events’. However, Crabtree teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Crabtree Abstract and Summary of the Invention in para [0034]-[0039]; and para [0239] about {“For example, in an embodiment, drilling through discrete event data may be accomplished through a variety of user interactions 2811 conducted via various user interfaces known in the art, including for example web-based and mobile applications. User interface actions involving a discrete event may involve drilling down into event components (forecasted via simulation or extrapolation of historical data, or both), which can enable users to exert more direct control over specific actions and their associated economic or comfort metrics. ……… By using an event-based methodology for assessing decision variables and outcomes associated with energy transformation events, ……… According to the invention, it is possible for automated decision-making, data presentation and intelligence, or decision-support to involve numerous different forward or past time periods as part of a decision for any given event. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘determined through extrapolation of past and current events’)
It would have been obvious prior to the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ordinary person of skill in the art to modify the teachings of VanKirk, Berry and Gross with the teachings of Crabtree. The motivation to combine these references would be to provide improved systems and methods that ensure assessors only apply obsolescence where it actually exists and so assessors can identify when the discrepancy in value is due to some reason other than obsolescence (see para [0005] of VanKirk), and to provide AVM (Automated Valuation Models) systems that accommodate a more tailored approach to property value estimation (see para [0006] of Berry), and to allow companies with a considerable market in the US for home improvement goods and services, such as for example, windows, landscaping, siding, paint, roofing, plumbing and similar products to name a few to target groups of homes in a neighborhood for these services (see para [0010] of Gross), and to provide building automation systems are generally defined herein as an intelligent network of electronic devices designed to monitor and control a variety of mechanical, lighting, and other systems inside a building, campus or microgrid (see para [0017] of Crabtree).
With respect to Claim 7, VanKirk, Berry, Gross and Crabtree teach ---
7. The property assessment system of claim 6, wherein the indications of property damage, property condition, and property boundaries are generated (using artificial
intelligence (AI) analysis) of the predetermined data.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘obtain predetermined data’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’ plus ‘property boundaries on the image of the property’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property damage’, ‘property condition’ and ‘property boundaries’ as rejected in Claim 6 above on which this claim depends)
(see at least: Crabtree ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘using artificial intelligence (AI) analysis’ already used in rejection of Claim 7); and para [0228] about {“…… The system is characterized by the fact that a combination of machine learning (or any other artificial intelligence method) may be applied to observed data in conjunction with user-supplied information …”}; and para [0246] about {“…… analytical optimization methods (for example, mixed integer programming), machine learning (or other similar forms of artificial intelligence), or optimization via simulation (such as integrated thermal and load modeling tools).”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘using artificial intelligence (AI) analysis’)
With respect to Claim 14, VanKirk, Berry, Gross and Crabtree teach ---
14. The property assessment system of claim 13, wherein the circuitry generates the descriptions using artificial intelligence (AI).
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘circuitry’, ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’, ‘on-site data’ provided from ‘a site visit’ to the property; and ‘display a marker in a region of the property’)
(see at least: Crabtree ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘using artificial intelligence (AI) analysis’ already used in rejection of Claim 7)
Dependent Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over VanKirk in view of Berry and Gross as applied to the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13 & 15-18 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2018/ 0225783 filed by Martin et al. (herein-after “Martin”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 8, VanKirk, Berry and Gross teach ---
8. The property assessment system of claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine, based on analysis of data from events on the timeline, (a status change) in at least a portion of the property; and
infer an event and a time of the event based on the change in (the status change).
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’, ‘on-site data’ provided from ‘a site visit’ to the property; and ‘display a marker in a region of the property’)
VanKirk and Berry and Gross teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘change’ and ‘a/ the status change’ plus ‘event/s’. However, Martin teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Martin Abstract and Summary of the Invention in para [0006]-[0007]; and para [0091] about {“Still further, the ranked listing is updated 312 upon the receipt of changes to the filtered property characteristics. …… All updates to the individual property are tracked to allow subsequent analysis of the reasoning for changes and inclusion or exclusion from the pool of recent sales or as a comparable property. …”}; and para [0132] about {“….. From this state, a user may selectively call up and change the status of any given property. …… This prompts 1408 display of an interface that is used to confirm the process of switching the status and to receive a corresponding narrative explanation. …”}; AND para [0102] about {“......For example, when using this application, appraisal activities of the user may be recorded so that they may be subsequently retrieved. The appraisal information may be retrieved based upon a variety of criteria, …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘changes’ and ‘a/ the status change’ AND ‘event/s’)
It would have been obvious prior to the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ordinary person of skill in the art to modify the teachings of VanKirk, Berry and Gross with the teachings of Martin. The motivation to combine these references would be to provide improved systems and methods that ensure assessors only apply obsolescence where it actually exists and so assessors can identify when the discrepancy in value is due to some reason other than obsolescence (see para [0005] of VanKirk), and to provide AVM (Automated Valuation Models) systems that accommodate a more tailored approach to property value estimation (see para [0006] of Berry), and to allow companies with a considerable market in the US for home improvement goods and services, such as for example, windows, landscaping, siding, paint, roofing, plumbing and similar products to name a few to target groups of homes in a neighborhood for these services (see para [0010] of Gross), and to provide techniques for quickly and accurately reviewing pools of property sales as potential comparable properties for subject properties (see para [0005] of Martin).
With respect to Claim 9, VanKirk, Berry, Gross and Martin teach ---
9. The property assessment system of claim 8, wherein the status change indicates an improvement to a condition of the portion of the property, and the event inferred is a repair of the portion of the property.
(see at least: VanKirk ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘property assessment system’ and ‘one or more properties’; and ‘rank the one or more properties’; and para [0057] for ‘improvement-only value’ and ‘improvements-only’; and para [0069] for ‘…… and the system calculates the Improvement-Only Value 214 (stage 71). …’; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘an improvement’ and ‘inferred is a repair’)
(see at least: Berry ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘one or more properties’; and ‘obtain at least one of a map or an image of the one or more properties’)
(see at least: Gross ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘physical condition data’, ‘on-site data’ provided from ‘a site visit’ to the property; and ‘display a marker in a region of the property’)
(see at least: Martin ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘a/ the status change’ and ‘event/s’)
With respect to Claim 19, the limitations of this method claim are rejected under 35 USC 103 based on the exemplary analysis above for the rejection of system Claims 1-18 as described above using cited references of VanKirk, Berry, Gross, Crabtree and Martin, because the limitations of this method Claim 19 are commensurate in scope to limitations, and thus duplicates, of the above rejected system Claims 1-18 as described above.
With respect to Claim 20, the limitations of this non-transitory computer-readable medium claim are rejected under 35 USC 103 based on the exemplary analysis above for the rejection of system Claims 1-18 as described above using cited references of VanKirk, Berry, Gross, Crabtree and Martin, because the limitations of this non-transitory computer-readable medium Claim 20 are commensurate in scope to limitations, and thus duplicates, of the above rejected system Claims 1-18 as described above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks (on pages 8-13) and claim amendments dated 22 JANUARY 2026 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not put these amended claims in a condition ready for Allowance. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 has been maintained as described above. Additionally, Examiner notes that all of the previous rejections under 35 USC §112, second paragraph, and all of the previous Drawings Objections have been withdrawn. Thus, the rejection of amended claims 1-20, as described above, is being maintained herein with some modifications in this Office Action under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103, where needed to provide clarification in response to the Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks.
Applicant's arguments of 01/22/2026 with respect to rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground/s by adding Gross reference for independent claims (in addition to previously used VanKirk and Berry references), plus new citation/s of rejection (from already used references), which were necessitated by the Applicant's ‘amendments to the claims’ and/or arguments. See MPEP §706.07(a). Examiner further notes that the newly cited Gross reference teaches about many limitations, such as, ‘physical condition data’ (newly added claim limitation); ‘on-site data’ provided from ‘a site visit’ to the property; ‘display a marker in a region of the property’; etc.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments of 01/22/2026 against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, Examiner clarifies that the instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea.
In further response to the Applicant’s 101 arguments of 01/22/2026 alleging that {“the features recited in amended Claim 1 advantageously combine to provide a significant improvement over existing assessment tools”}, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, Examiner notes that this is not a technology solution, but a business solution to solve the needs of this Applicant, and doesn’t overcome the 101 rejection described above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See at least 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Examiner notes that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and that all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application and form a part of the body of prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights