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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 03/30/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1, 3-20, are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of searching for a real estate property deal (including for investment purposes) that is based on matching data (the claimed property features, privacy features, user features) that represents developers and investors. The concept at hand is that of matching an offer for a real estate property with a second user that can be an investor looking to invest in real estate. This represents an abstract idea as will be set forth below.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 19, 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
searching for a real estate property, the method comprising:
storing a plurality of property features corresponding to a property of a first user in a database; the plurality of property features comprising a looked-for user characteristic corresponding to a second user, and a looked-for resource characteristic corresponding to the second user
storing a plurality of privacy features corresponding to the property in the database, the plurality of privacy features comprising a first visibility characteristic corresponding to the looked-for user characteristic and a second visibility characteristic corresponding to the looked-for resource characteristic
storing the plurality of second user features corresponding to a second user in the database, the plurality of second user features comprising a second user type characteristic and a second user resource characteristic
determining the second user is an acceptable second user based on
(i)associating the stored plurality of privacy features with the stored plurality of property features in the database,
(ii) associating the first visibility characteristic with the second user type characteristic, and
(iii) associating the second visibility characteristic with the second user resource characteristic
generating a marketplace tab and a separate watchlist tab, the marketplace tab comprising at least one icon for a property post based on the plurality of property features,
the property post icon on the private interface being visible to the acceptable second user for a predetermined period of time,
the plurality of privacy features configured to limit visibility of the property post icon such that the acceptable second user is able to view the property post icon;
determining the acceptable second user saved the property post icon on the marketplace tab; and transposing the property post icon from the marketplace tab to the watchlist tab
The above limitations are reciting a process of searching for a real estate property (broad claim scope including for investment purposes) that is based on matching data that represents developers and investors. The concept at hand is that of matching up an offer for a real estate property with a second user that can be an investor looking to invest in real estate. Per the specification, the claimed user is a person who is seeking an investor, and the second user(s) is/are an investor that is able to view property posts for properties that for investment. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities that can be characterized as being a commercial practice, or a sales activity. Matching buyers looking to invest in real estate with sellers of a property is a fundamental economic practice that is ubiquitous in the real estate industry. This defines a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea.
With respect to the claimed use of the tabs, absent more about the actual implementation by technology for this step, broadly reciting that an icon is transposed to another tab is considered to be part of the abstract idea. A tab can be a strip of material on a file that identifies the file, and moving an icon from one to another can be done manually by a person, because an icon is just a symbol or representation of data. This is just moving an icon from one place to another on a tab.
For claim 1, the additional elements of the claims are the "via the at least one processor" language and the generation and use of the private interface that is used to display the property post to the second user(s). The word "private" is descriptive language that is trying to describe the interface but that does not define any structure or functionality to the interface beyond that which is claimed. An interface is an interface, what you call it does not define structure or functionality. This limitation has been treated as being an interface in a broad sense,
For claim 19, the additional elements include one or more processors and memories that includes instructions configured to perform the steps that define the abstract idea and the interface (same as addressed for claim 1).
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium as an additional element. With respect to the private interface, the word "private" does not impart any particular structure to the interface and this limitation has been treated as being an interface in a broad sense, as was addressed for claim 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2ⁿᵈ prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim amount to the use of a computing device with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea and the use of an interface to display data, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited apparatus/computing device that has a processor and memory (CRM), and using a generically recited user interface to perform steps that define the abstract idea. As stated previously, calling the interface a private interface does not define structure or functionality to the interface. The instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea (computing device with an interface) does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer that is connected to a network to be able to receive data. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited apparatus with a processor and memory (CRM), and using a generically recited user interface to perform steps that define the abstract idea, as was stated above for the 2ⁿᵈ prong. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2ⁿᵈ prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary.
The claims 1, 19, 20, do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 3, the receiving of the features from the third user and storing the features are elements that are part of the abstract idea. The features and receiving them with subsequent data storage is what serves to define the abstract idea. The recitation that the interface is visible to the third user is reciting a generic interface that can allow for a person to view data, and has been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 4-6, the claimed determining step(s) is/are considered to be part of the abstract idea. Determining if the user is an acceptable user or not an acceptable user by analyzing the recited data is what in part defines the abstract idea. The processor and interface have been treated din the same manner as set forth for claim 1. See MPEP25106.05(f). The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 7, reciting that the looked-for user is an equity resource user (an investor) is part of the abstract idea and is simply claiming that a user is a user. What you call the user or name the user does not define anything to the claimed method or apparatus or CRM. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 8, the resource value is part of the abstract idea and reads on the general user seeking an investor for a certain amount of money, or for a loan in a certain amount or range. The resource value that is claimed is part of the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 9, the generating of a contact form and the form being configured to send of a message from the second user to the general user is considered to be part of the abstract idea. A person can manually generate the contact form with pen and paper and a message can be written on the paper. No further additional element is claimed for consideration. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 10, 11, the claimed verification and generating of the post based on the verification are elements that serve to define more about the abstract idea. For claim 11, removing the post is also considered to be part of the abstract idea. People can do what is claimed with no technology at all. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 12, 13, the generation of the impression data as claimed is part of the abstract idea. Data such as how long a post is viewed and/or how many times the post is selected is simply being generated and stored that is recited at a high level of generality. Absent further clarification on the technological processes that allow for the claimed function to occur, broadly claiming the generation of impression data as claimed is considered to be part of the abstract idea. The displaying of the post(s) is part of the abstract idea as was addressed for claim 1, where the use of the interface did not render the claims eligible as this was a mere instruction for one to use a computer to perform a step of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 14, the storing of demographic data in a database so it can be matched, associating the impression data with the demographic data and revealing the data to the general user is considered to be part of the abstract idea. Before computers were invented people stored demographic data so it can be used for matching to data regarding users, such as user profiles. What is claimed can be done by people with no technology at all and amounts to a data association being made so that results can be viewed by the general user. This is part of the abstract idea. The recitation to the processor has been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 15, the claimed matching using filters for the property search is part of the abstract idea. Matching a property posts using filters for searching is part of the abstract idea and can be done by people manually. The interface has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1, to which applicant is referred. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 16, the claim is reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was found for claim 1. After a given time has expired, an icon can be removed from a tab manually so that it is not there anymore to be seen by a user. Reciting that the condition is not receiving a payment is also part of the abstract idea. No further additional element has been claimed for consideration. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 17, the claimed collecting of the usage data and the recitation to the amount of time and the icon not being visible if a condition is satisfied, etc., are elements that are considered to be part of the abstract idea. A person can collect the claimed data and can compare data as claimed. Reciting that the usage data includes third data that is indicating a deal was closed is also part of the abstract idea. The processor has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 18, the generating of the impression data, generating a verification token and generating second impression data are elements that are part of the abstract idea. A person can manually perform what is claimed by generating the claimed information and a token (data representative of other data). The processor has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2ⁿᵈ prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1, 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. The applicant argues that the claims have been treated at too high of a level of generality. Reference is made to the Desjardins decision regarding how examiners cannot disregard claim limitations without considering if they provide for an improvement in technology. In reply the examiner notes that the claims have been considered for what they expressly recite in total and as a whole, and have not been treated at a high level of generality. All of the claimed language is accounted for and treated in the 35 USC 101 rejection of record.
The applicant argues that the examiner has disregarded the interface elements and argues that the examiner has over-generalized the claimed invention such that the claims have been stripped of their technological features. This is not persuasive. The claim recites that the interface has a marketplace tab and a watchlist tab that comprises an icon, that is visible to the acceptable second user for a period of time, and that the icon is transposed from the marketplace tab to the watchlist tab when the property post is saved. The claimed determining that the acceptable second user saved the property post icon on the marketplace tab; and transposing the property post icon from the marketplace tab to the watchlist tab has been considered to be part of the abstract idea and does not result in an improvement to technology. The icon is being moved from one tab to another, and this is not claiming anything specific about an improvement to an interface or to the functioning of a computer, etc.. The claim as a whole has been considered. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive.
On page 12 of the reply the applicant argues that prior systems that perform automated financing required broad data disclosure as a prerequisite for matching. The applicant argues that the pending claims provide a technological solution to that problem, which is controlling visibility through specific data structures. What the claimed invention has to do with broad disclosure of data is not clear. Requiring disclosure of data does not seem to be related to controlling visibility to a property post. The argument is not persuasive. Also, the claims use the transitionary phrase of “comprising” that allows for additional elements to be present so the claims do not exclude the collection of any data or amount of data such that the argument is commensurate with the scope of the claims.
The applicant argues that the claims recite three data structures which are the claimed property features, privacy features, and user features. The applicant argues that the characteristics are designed to be associated with each other and constitutes a privacy control mechanism. The applicant argues on page 13 of the reply that the privacy control mechanism controls visibility through a three part association test that ensures only users whose type and resource characteristics match the developers criteria can view the post. The argument is not persuasive. The claim recites the storage of three types of data and the use of the data to be associated with each other to determine if a user is an acceptable user who can view a property post/icon. The argued three part association test that controls the visibility of the property post is part of the abstract idea and is the act of associating the claimed data to other data to determine that a user is an acceptable user. What has been argued is what defines the abstract idea and is not something that serves to improve technology in any manner. The claims are not like Enfish because the claims do not improve technology in any manner by providing a technological solution to a technical problem. The claimed three part process for determining whether a second user is acceptable of: (i) associating the stored privacy features with the stored property features in the database, (ii) associating the first visibility characteristic with the second user type characteristic, and (iii) associating the second visibility characteristic with the second user resource characteristic is part of the abstract idea. People can associate data as claimed by comparing the data, including mentally. Ensuring that property post visibility is controlled before disclosure rather than after, by only allowing users who pass the three part test to view the property post is not improving technology. The argued element is the act of comparing data to other data to find associations to determine if a user is acceptable or not. This is part of the abstract idea, not an additional element that provides for an improvement to technology.
The applicant argues on page 14 of the reply that the claims recite substantially more than any alleged abstract idea. The applicant argues that the use of the claimed characteristics are not generic undifferentiated data fields because they are specific interrelated data structures where privacy features are paired with property features and user features (the three part association test data). What has been argued is the abstract idea in terms of the data that is the claimed privacy features, property features, and user features, along with their association to each other (matching, pairing). This is part of the abstract idea and is the process of comparing data to determine if a user is acceptable or not. The argument that the claims only allow users who satisfy all three association steps is able to view the property post icon is not persuasive to show that the claims are eligible. The fact that the claims are matching users by associating the characteristics to determine that a user is an acceptable user who can view the property post is what serves to define the abstract idea. The argued confidentiality problem that is allegedly solved by the three part association test is what defines the abstract idea and is not improving technology or the interface of the claim. Prescreening people prior to allowing them to view property post information is something that people can do with no technology at all, and does not render the claims eligible. Determining who to allow to view certain information as opposed to broadcasting that same information to anyone and everyone is not a technological problem or solution. What the applicant is arguing is the abstract idea of the claims which is not persuasive to show that the claims are improving technology or that the claims are providing for an improved GUI. The claims are not similar to Bascom as has been alleged on page 15. The arguments are not persuasive and the 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
The double patenting rejection has been overcome based on the Terminal Disclaimer of 03/30/26 that has been approved.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights