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 1-6 are currently pending in application 18/798,598.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/334956, 16/127938, 14319937, 12873267, and 61/238613, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application 18/798,598 is therefore examined below with the priority date of filing, 8/8/2024.
Continuation-in-part (CIP)
This application is a continuation-in-part (“CIP”) application of U.S. application no. 17/334,956 filed on 5/31/2021. See MPEP §201.08. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A.
Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 8/8/2024 both fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each non-patent literature publication (including date of publication) or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The listing of references in the specification (Pgs. 2-3) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Specification – Objections
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In Para 0002 of the Specification, “16//127,938”, should read as “16/127,938”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 4 recite, at least one classifier from “the residential classifier list”, which contains insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested (Examiner suggests “a residential classifier list”).
Claims 1 and 4 recite, “the standardized residential classifier list”, which contains insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested (Examiner suggests “a standardized residential classifier list”).
Claims 1 and 4 recite, “the use of a feedback loop”, which contains insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested (Examiner suggests “use of a feedback loop”).
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are also rejected as being dependent from claims 1 and 4, under the same rationale and reasoning as identified above.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5-6, the phrase "etc." (et cetera, meaning "and other things") renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The Examiner suggest the Applicant claim the lists beginning with “comprising” (which means "including but not limited to the elements identified"); for example, (claim 2) residential classifier list contains one or more names or labels comprising “home”, “house”, “single family home”, and/ or “detached residence”, to denote single family house with yard as a use.
Claims 2 and 5 recite, “the public agency”, which contains insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested (Examiner suggests “a public agency”).
Claims 3 and 6 recite, “the classification model”, which contains insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested (Examiner suggests “a classification model” or “the standardized classification model”).
Claims 3 and 6 recite, actions are added to “the classification list”, which contains insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested (Examiner suggests “a classification list” or “the residential classifier list” or “the standardized residential classifier list”).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Player et al. (US 2025/0044910 A1) in view of Blackman et al. (US 2020/0394243 A1).
As per independent Claims 1 and 4, Player discloses a system (method) for automating and analyzing single-family home only use through a standardized classification model leveraging supervised machine learning (See at least Para 0080-0081), comprising:
a graphical user interface receiving request from a user or by auto command for at least one standardized single-family home only use query, including identifying location and at least one classifier from the residential classifier list (See at least Para 0018, “… The memory includes software instructions executable by the at least one processor to: receive, via the API, a zoning controls request from the client computer generated by a user interacting with the GUI displayed on the client computer …”);
a database storage for a plurality of disparate data stores comprising zoning, and location data (See at least Para 0018 and Para 0080-0082, “…storing the digitized data from step 504 into a database, which can include pushing the digitized data into the database using an automated pipeline.”; Para 0083, “Then, in a step 508, the digitized data is formatted and stored in memory”);
a processor receiving data from data stores and executing instructions to standardize a plurality of data sets using the standardized residential classifier list wherein the processor standardizes one or more zoning districts with corresponding location and at least one classifier from the residential classifier list (See at least Para 0018; Para 0080, “The method 500 includes a first step 502 of compiling raw zoning information source material. Step 502 can include finding Find URLs, pdfs, and images for target cities from the internet, inputting the Input the URLs to web crawlers for extracting the HTMLs, and automatically splitting and saving the extracted HTMLs in JSON files.”; and Para 0081, “ A next step 504 includes converting the information from step 502 into digital information. The step 504 can include extracting the text from HTML data saved in JSONs for each html page or section of the zoning code. The extracted text is then cleaned by removing unicodes and non-desired redundant text, and formatted to remove newline characters and extra spaces using regular expressions, text tokenizers and other text processing techniques. Then, deep learning models are used for extracting the entities of interest, and a large language model (LLM) is used to enhance and format the output.”;
the processor using one or more algorithms trained using one or more structured datasets as truth data and the use of a feedback loop to analyze results identifying patterns used to build and/or alter one or more models applied to at least one data store (See at least Para 0018 and Para 0081, “… Then, deep learning models are used for extracting the entities of interest, and a large language model (LLM) is used to enhance and format the output.” The Examiner points out that deep learning models and Large Language Models (LLMs) inherently use iterative (or reiterative) learning. The entire process of training a neural network is based on iterative optimization.); and
the graphical user interface receiving and displaying results from the processor of the standardized single-family home only use queries using the standardized classification model (See at least Para 0018, “… The memory includes software instructions executable by the at least one processor to: receive, via the API, a zoning controls request from the client computer generated by a user interacting with the GUI displayed on the client computer by the generative architecture model software, the zoning controls request including a selected geographic area; access a zoning data record, from a zoning record database in the memory, associated with the selected geographic area, the zoning data record associating a zone in which the selected geographic area is located with zoning restriction attributes limiting real estate development within the zone, the zoning data record further associating the zoning restriction attributes with zoning use class information for the zone and zoning restriction parameters for the zoning restriction attributes; and extract from the zoning data record, as a function of the zoning restriction request and as a function of a default and/or a conditional zoning use class, the zoning restriction attributes associated with the zone and the zoning restriction parameters for the zoning restriction attributes by retrieving, from the zoning data record, the zoning restriction attributes associated with the zone in the zoning data record and each zoning restriction parameter for the default and/or conditional zoning use class associated with the zoning restriction attributes in the zoning data record; package the extracted zoning restriction parameters into a data object in a predefined data exchange format associated with the API; and transmit the data object, as an API response, to the generative architecture model software to generate a visual representation of the extracted zoning restriction parameters on the GUI on the client computer.”).
While Player does disclose a database storage for a plurality of disparate data stores comprising zoning, deed restrictions, and location data (See at least Para 0018 and Para 0080-0083, See rejection above), and wherein the processor standardizes one or more zoning districts with corresponding location and at least one classifier from the residential classifier list (See at least Para 0018 and Para 0080, see rejection above), Player fails to expressly disclose storing and standardizing deed restriction data.
However, the analogous art of Blackman discloses storing and standardizing deed restriction data (See at least Para 0032, “ As described herein, the database system provides an application (e.g., a web-based application) for retrieving the indexed title exceptions and filtering individual title exceptions based on user-defined rules or filters. The filtered individual title exceptions may be used to generate a title product such as a title examination report or title insurance policy. As used herein, the term “title exception” generally refers to one or more paragraphs of text that defines a transaction-specific item that is not covered under a title policy for a parcel of land or property. For example, title exceptions may comprise judgments, easements, covenants taxes, special assessments, mechanic's liens, and covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's).”; Para 0037-0039, Data is extracted, indexed/ standardized and saved; and Para 0070, “Comparable title order system 350 may retrieve title order information for properties within a specified distance of a specified property. For example, using search module 330, a user may search for comparable properties using a property address or Assessor Parcel Number (“APN”). The comparable properties may be displayed as a selectable list and existing title order information such as title exceptions may be retrieved for these properties. Address validation system 360 may validate and standardize addresses and obtain address information such as street-level longitude and latitude. This information may be used to ensure that searches performed on application 300 for a property retrieve information for relevant property.”)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included storing and standardizing deed restriction data, as disclosed by Blackman in the system disclosed by Player for the advantage of providing a system/ method for automating and analyzing single-family home only use through a standardized classification model leveraging supervised machine learning, with the ability to increase system/ method effectiveness by incorporating a variety of real estate related data types (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
As per Claims 2 and 5, Player and Blackman disclose wherein: location includes an address and/or homeowner’s association name and/or any type of geographical area defined by a boundary including but not limited to one or more: parcels, property owner associations, or governmental jurisdiction such as a city limit (Player: See at least Figs.3a-3e; Para 0036); residential classifier list contains one or more names or labels such as “home”, “house”, “single family home”, “detached residence” to denote single family house with yard as a use (Player: See at least Figs.3a-3e and Fig.6; Para 0032 and Para 0040); deed restrictions include private deed restrictions such as a covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), homeowner’s association agreements (Blackman: Para 0032), and public deed restrictions such a developer’s agreement between the public agency/ department and developer (Blackman: Para 0032); and data stores contain spatial and nonspatial data (Player: See at least Figs.3a-3e and Fig.6; Para 0054-0057).
As per Claims 3 and 6, Player and Blackman disclose wherein the processor further modifies the classification model wherein: prohibited uses or actions are added to the classification list such as “no duplex”, “no apartments”, “no commercial”, “no subdividing” (Player: See at least Para 0004, 0017-0018, Para 0033-0035, and Para 0044 / Table 1); non-single family home use examples are added to the classification list such as “condominium”, “townhouse”, “twin house”, “clubhouse”, “common areas”; and small-scale single family uses are added to the classification list such as tiny house, cottage, patio home (Player: See at least Para 0004; and Para 0014-0017, Zoning use class data). The Examiner further notes that the various additions to the classification list limitations are design choices that were known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in Real Estate/ Legal industries and other digital zoning activity; and to modify Player in view of Blackman to incorporate the limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a desired result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments.
Frost (US 20050273346 A1) - Discloses a system of finding real property comprises a map-based search tool and a street-based search tool.
Hutchinson et al. (US 20130036031 A1) - Discloses a land use activities system for monitoring and management of properties and property modifications located within each one of a plurality of jurisdictions
Kalyanasundaram et al. (US 20200043110 A1) – Discloses a land acquisition and property development analysis platform.
Abhyanker et al. (US 20250190641 A1) – Discloses a land-use planning system includes a data collection module configured to extract a shape file associated with a property address of a plot of real property in a jurisdiction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
December 22, 2025
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights