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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 4/14/2026. Currently claims 1-20 are pending and claims 1, 8, 15 are independent. Claims 1, 8, 15 have been amended from the previous claim set dated 11/12/2024. No claims have been added or cancelled.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged and necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/4/2026 appears to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-20, following the Guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-7) are directed to a statutory category, namely a method. Claim 8 and its dependent claims (claims 9-14) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 15 and its dependent claims (claims 16-20) are directed to a statutory category, namely an article of manufacture.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1, 8, and 15, which are substantially similar claims to one another, are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental processes”, or more particularly, “Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to analyze and evaluate property values over time. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that a real estate agent might perform when selling a house. The abstract elements of claims 1, 8, and 15, recite in part “Receive boundary…Identify properties…Execute query…Determine historical values…Generate HPI…Adjust sales prices…”. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20, add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Receive subject property…Generate comp list…Adjsut historical prices…Receive filter…Apply parameters…Generate HPI…Determine historical estimates…Determine value estimates…Store estimates…Use data series…Receive drawn lines…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1, 8, and 15, which are substantially similar claims to one another, do not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Computing system…Memory device…Processors…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 8, and 15, which are substantially similar claims to one another, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Computing system…Memory device…Processors …”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (analyze and evaluate property values over time) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0062] – “In general, software 605 may, when loaded into processing system 602 and executed, transform a suitable apparatus, system, or device (of which computing system 601 is representative) overall from a general-purpose computing system...”
Additionally, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbird et al. (US 20130339255 A1) in view of Dickson (US 20150170301 A1) further in view of Humphries et al. (US 11861635 B1)
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15 (Amended), Talbird discloses a method comprising: executing a market-level house price index (HPI) valuation operation via a computing system to generate an HPI for a selected tailored property market at runtime (Talbird ¶7 - The present invention provides an automated valuation model and corresponding analysis tool that graphically displays value history information in association with a subject property. In one example, the tool generates a graph plotting the valuation history of a subject property over an adjustable time range in relation to a general price index for a pertinent geographical area), identifying a plurality of properties within the area (Talbird ¶107 - A subject property within the geographic area of interest is identified 208 as is a pool of comparable properties); determining historical value estimates for the plurality of properties; generating the market-level HPI for the selected tailored property market based on the historical value estimates; and adjusting historical sale prices of the plurality of properties to current market value based on the market-level HPI (Talbird Figs 5A-5C – Talbird ¶113 - Preferably, the application generates and displays graphical value history information (216). These value history graphs may depict one or more of (1) the subject property; (2) corresponding appraiser-chosen comparable properties; (3) model-chosen comparable properties; and/or (4) local home price index).
Talbird lacks receiving a geographic boundary selection to define an area for the selected tailored property market.
Dickson, from the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving a geographic boundary selection to define an area for the selected tailored property market (Dickson ¶86 - the client 102 may draw boundaries on a map indicating desired geographical location).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the automated valuation methodology/system of Talbird by including the real estate search techniques of Dickson because Dickson discloses “The present disclosure provides a description of systems and methods for searching for and locating real estate having desired attribute (Dickson ¶5)”. Additionally, Talbird further details that “This application relates to an automated valuation model that accommodates assessment of subject items with graphical assessment of value history (Talbird ¶2)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional real estate search techniques that Dickson discloses because it would help search for subject properties to include within the analysis of Talbird.
Talbird further lacks stored time-series property valuation data, valuation estimates periodically generated for a large geographic region, wherein the valuation estimates comprise time-series valuation data for properties regardless of sale occurrence, aggregating and processing the time-series valuation data of the identified plurality of properties and produce machine-generated, market-adjusted valuation outputs.
Humphries, from the same field of endeavor, teaches time-series property valuation data, valuation estimates periodically generated for a large geographic region (Humphries Fig. 5-6), wherein the valuation estimates comprise time-series valuation data for properties regardless of sale occurrence, aggregating and processing the time-series valuation data of the identified plurality of properties and produce machine-generated, market-adjusted valuation outputs (Humphries ABS - The facility combines the appreciation rates to obtain an aggregate appreciation rate for the subject period, and combines the aggregate appreciation rate for the period with a housing index value for a prior period to obtain the housing index value for the subject geographic region and subject period).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the automated valuation methodology/system of Talbird by including the real estate market analysis techniques of Humphries because Humphries discloses “the facility provides a characterization of the value and rate of appreciation of a regional housing market that is more accurate than existing housing indices (Humphries COL 3 ROW 4)”. Additionally, Talbird further details that “This application relates to an automated valuation model that accommodates assessment of subject items with graphical assessment of value history (Talbird ¶2)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional real estate market analysis techniques that Humphries discloses because it would improve the accuracy of valuations within the analysis of Talbird.
Regarding claims 2, 11, 17, Talbird in view of Dickson further in view of Humphries discloses receiving a subject property selection for a subject property to be valued based on the selected tailored property market (Talbird ¶115 - FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating an example of a process 300 for generating a graphical value history display. The subject property is identified 302, such as by entry of address or other identification, or though selection from a map image).
Regarding claims 3, 12, 18, Talbird in view of Dickson further in view of Humphries discloses generating a comp list of sales of comparable properties to the subject property within the selected tailored property market (Talbird ¶63 - Comparable selection rules may also be used to narrow the pool of comps to exclude the properties which are determined to be insufficiently similar to the subject for reasons separate from the contributions as determined from the above-described regressions. The exclusion rules should be considered optional and will depend upon the implementation. A comparable property should be located in a relative vicinity of the subject and should be sold relatively recently; it should also be of similar size and age and sit on a commensurate parcel of land).
Regarding claims 4, 13, Talbird in view of Dickson further in view of Humphries discloses adjusting the historical sale prices of the sales on the comp list based on the market-level HPI (Talbird Figs 5A-5C – Talbird ¶150 - One piece of selectable information that can be represented along with the subject property data points 530a and 530b is an HPI (home price index) keyed to the previous transaction (530a) of the subject property. When the "Subject HPI" entry is checked in the summary grid data 520b, the value history area 520a updates to show the corresponding plot 540 of the Subject HPI. The HPI is an index for a geographical area corresponding to the subject property. By taking the past transaction (530a) information and the HPI, one can generate and render the curve corresponding to the historical valuation of the property according to the index. Here, the user can see the peaks and valleys of the value over time. Additionally, discrepancies between the appraised value and that determined according to the HPI are shown).
Regarding claims 5, 10, 16, Talbird in view of Dickson further in view of Humphries discloses receiving a property filter selection to specify property parameters to limit which properties are included in the selected tailored property market; applying the property parameters to the plurality of properties within the area to provide a list of filtered properties(Talbird ¶63 - Comparable selection rules may also be used to narrow the pool of comps to exclude the properties which are determined to be insufficiently similar to the subject for reasons separate from the contributions as determined from the above-described regressions. The exclusion rules should be considered optional and will depend upon the implementation. A comparable property should be located in a relative vicinity of the subject and should be sold relatively recently; it should also be of similar size and age and sit on a commensurate parcel of land. The "N" comparables that pass through the exclusion rules are used for further analysis and value prediction); and generating the market-level HPI based on the historical value estimates of the list of filtered properties (Talbird ¶113 - Once the model has performed the regression, adjustments and weighting of comparables, a variety of displays may be generated using the data. Preferably, the application generates and displays graphical value history information (216). These value history graphs may depict one or more of (1) the subject property; (2) corresponding appraiser-chosen comparable properties; (3) model-chosen comparable properties; and/or (4) local home price index).
Regarding claims 6, 14, 19, Talbird in view of Dickson further in view of Humphries discloses determining the historical value estimates for the plurality of properties includes: determining value estimates at a selected time interval for properties in a large geographical region; storing the value estimates as a data series for the respective properties; and using the data series for properties in the selected tailored property market as the historical value estimates (Talbird Figs 5A-5C – Talbird ¶150 - One piece of selectable information that can be represented along with the subject property data points 530a and 530b is an HPI (home price index) keyed to the previous transaction (530a) of the subject property. When the "Subject HPI" entry is checked in the summary grid data 520b, the value history area 520a updates to show the corresponding plot 540 of the Subject HPI. The HPI is an index for a geographical area corresponding to the subject property. By taking the past transaction (530a) information and the HPI, one can generate and render the curve corresponding to the historical valuation of the property according to the index. Here, the user can see the peaks and valleys of the value over time. Additionally, discrepancies between the appraised value and that determined according to the HPI are shown).
Regarding claims 7, 9, 20, Talbird in view of Dickson further in view of Humphries discloses a method comprising: executing a market-level house price index (HPI) valuation operation via a computing system to generate an HPI for a selected tailored property market at runtime (Talbird ¶7 - The present invention provides an automated valuation model and corresponding analysis tool that graphically displays value history information in association with a subject property. In one example, the tool generates a graph plotting the valuation history of a subject property over an adjustable time range in relation to a general price index for a pertinent geographical area).
Dickson further teaches receiving the geographic boundary selection includes receiving drawn line inputs defining contours of the area for the selected tailored property market (Dickson ¶86 - the client 102 may draw boundaries on a map indicating desired geographical location).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the automated valuation methodology/system of Talbird by including the real estate search techniques of Dickson because Dickson discloses “The present disclosure provides a description of systems and methods for searching for and locating real estate having desired attribute (Dickson ¶5)”. Additionally, Talbird further details that “This application relates to an automated valuation model that accommodates assessment of subject items with graphical assessment of value history (Talbird ¶2)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional real estate search techniques that Dickson discloses because it would help search for subject properties to include within the analysis of Talbird.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new rejections addressed above.
Regarding the arguments related to the 35 USC § 101 rejections, as addressed above according to USPTO guidance for 35 USC § 101 rejections contained within MPEP 2106, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is an abstract idea, without significantly more, and not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, however, Examiner does not find this persuasive. Specifically, the claims are interpreted as a method for evaluating the prices of homes within an area. This evaluative process, while facilitated through the use of a computer, is clearly a mental process.
The Applicant also makes numerous arguments as to how the claimed invention is further integrated into a practical application by addressing some of the analytical steps of the claimed invention. While this analysis might be an improvement to the business process of valuing properties, and as such, have practical applicability, this practical applicability is not synonymous with USPTO guidance. Specifically, the claimed invention needs have significant additional elements as to where the claimed invention is effectively integrated into those additional elements. As addressed above, the identified additional elements are “Computing system…Memory device…Processors…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the Applicant references court cases which are intended to prove that the claimed invention is not an abstract idea. The Examiner does not find these arguments persuasive. The Enfish case is not persuasive because, whereas in Enfish the claimed invention is an improvement to a technological device (computer), the Applicant’s claimed invention is not an improvement to a computer, but rather an improvement to an information gathering and analysis technique that happens to take place by means of a computer.
Regarding the 35 USC § 101 Step 2B analysis, applicant argues that the identified elements are significantly more based on the Berkheimer decision. This is unpersuasive because in both the previous Office action and in the rejection above, the identified items are found to be not significantly more because they are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and not because they are standard, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) which the Berkheimer case is directed towards.
Regarding 35 USC § 103 rejections on the previous Office action, Applicant amended the independent claims to further limit the claims with respect to time series analysis of home prices. In light of this amendment, Examiner agrees that the original references did not clearly teach this, however the amendment necessitated further search and consideration. As a result of this further search and consideration, prior art was found that does teach these limitations (Humphries as discussed above). As such, Applicant’s arguments (with respect to the independent claims and their respective dependent claims) are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights