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
The office action is being examined in response to the Amendments filed by the Applicant on 14 April 2026.
Claims 1-16 and Newly added claims 17 and 18 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Answer to Arguments
Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 14 April 2026, with respect to the Objections to claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objections of claims 1 and 10 for being substantial duplicates thereof are attended to with the amendments that add structure to claim 10, where claim 10 is no longer a substantial duplicate of claim 1. The objections to claims 1 and 10 have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 14 April 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) for claims 1 and 4-7, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The applicants’ arguments, asserting that the disclosure of Drucker is a fundamentally different system architecture over the instant invention, rely on facts from the specification that both cannot be read into the claims to assert differences, and are not included in the claims in a manner that attributes said fundamental differences into the claims in a meaningful way. That is, the instant claims do not specify where or when the documents are uploaded from or to. Ultimately, humans are implemented to process uploading documents, manually, still today. Therefore, the metadata in Drucker is not fundamentally or patentably distinct from the metadata in the instant claims. While some of the claims may identify the data as manually uploaded by humans, those are addressed by 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections with additional referenced prior art. The manner of recitations presented in the claims that are being addressed, do not differentiate where the documents or document data comes from in a manner that is required to be isolated, therefore, the arguments are not persuasive, but for claim 10.
Please find the updated 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejections below for claims 1, 4-7, and 17.
The rejection for claim 1 and the remaining rejections for claims 4-7 which depend on claim 1, are also Maintained.
Since claim 10 incorporates amendments that add structural elements, the arguments with regards to claim 10, on page 10, have been fully considered are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, but a new grounds of rejection is not made in view of the new structural element that moves the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejections for claims 10, and 13-16 to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection utilizing the same base art as presented previously.
The remaining rejections for claims 13-16, which depend on claim 10, are also Withdrawn and moved to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections due to the dependency on claim 10.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 14 April 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claims, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
As discussed above, in the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection response to arguments, the particular independent claims under argument, claims 1 and 10, do not address the particular differences asserted by the applicants’ arguments in a manner that supports said assertions. Since the assertions are not supported, the claims do not differentiate from Drucker in the way asserted, and therefore, the differences are not a patentable distinction.
Further, the argument, that Cantral does not teach providing documents with metadata, such that metadata is data about data, are not persuasive. The applicants’ assertions disclose that an agreement exists between the Examiner and the Applicant, because the OCR method of Cantral extracts data from scanned documents, i.e. data from data, e.g. metadata. The particular differentiation, that the user’s provide the metadata, vs the system automates the retrieval of metadata, are not patentable distinctions, in the manner claimed. Further, as is shown below in the updated rejection, both the prior art disclosures of Cantral and Drucker disclose the claim limitations jointly as presented. Nothing in the arguments disclose how the individual or combination of disclosures fail to disclose the claim recitations in a manner that supports patentable distinctions. The addition of Ubalde for these claims, is not presented and therefore the arguments that Ubalde does not cure Drucker for claims 2-3 and 11-12, is Moot.
The applicants’ argument, that Drucker teaches away from the instant application is not persuasive nor probative, because, as disclosed above, the distinctions are not presented in the claims and cannot be read in from any specification. The assertion that Drucker’s core teachings are contradicted, are therefore, not probative nor germane to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections.
The applicants’ argument, that there is no motivation IN Drucker, is Moot and not germane to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, because the Examiner presents a motivation to combine that does not require a motivation from Drucker. Said motivation to combine is enough without it being directly addressed in Drucker beyond the statement provided.
Since Claim 10 was amended in a meaningful way, to merit moving it from the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejections to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, it also follows that claims 11-16 and 18 are rejected under the same as 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, all with the same primary art.
Please find the updated rejections below for 35 U.S.C. § 103, reflecting amendments.
Aside from the amendments due to structure in claim 10 and the movement of the dependent claims from 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejections to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been Maintained.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Drucker, US20060026136A1.
Regarding claim 1: Drucker discloses: [0029] (CPU) [0030] (a system with a data engine, i.e. a processor, rom, i.e. memory, data formatter, i.e. instructions, software, rules used for formatting data, remote computer, user’s system), and [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data)
Receive, at the one or more processors, a request to generate the title, the request comprising information related to a real property of interest; [0004 and 0083-0084] (order is placed/executed by one or more abstractors, i.e. users, including a request for a title report for a particular property, the request is sent to and received by the system processors), [0016 and 0018] (systems for generating a title report), [0030] (data engine, i.e. a processor, report builder application for generating title reports);
Receive, at the one more processors, a first document associated with the real property of interest, the first document comprising first metadata created responsive to a first document input received from a first user device, the first document input comprising information about which type of property document is being uploaded, the first metadata including a first timing element; [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data); [0033] (system accumulates, i.e. receives, a plurality of data associated with the property title including at least a complete set of real estate records, documents like judgements, property liens, and other record instruments, all of which are documents), [0035] (dates and date ranges of collected data and metadata is created responsive to plurality of document data input received from user devices, and indexing and partitioning schemes are applied), [0004] (by one or more abstractors, i.e. users, perform searches for title data);
Receive, at the one more processors, a second document associated with the real property of interest, the second document comprising second metadata created responsive to a second document input received from the first user device and/or a second user device, the second metadata including a second timing element; and [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data); [0033] (system accumulates, i.e. receives, a plurality of data associated with the property title including at least a complete set of real estate records, documents like judgements, property liens, and other record instruments, all of which are documents), [0035] (dates and date ranges of collected data and metadata is created responsive to plurality of document data input received from user devices, and indexing and partitioning schemes are applied), [0004] (by one or more abstractors, i.e. users, perform searches for title data);
Generate, via the one or more processors, the title to include the first document and the second document appearing within the title in an order based on at least one of: [0079] (arrange documents in title report), [0080] (generate a report, the generated report including a plurality of documents that appear withing a title record);
(i) the first timing element and the second timing element; or [0053] (2 timing elements, i.e. recordation date and/or deed book/page numbers),
(ii) a standardized order for title documentation. [0079] (standard/preferred order for documents in title report).
Regarding claim 4: Drucker discloses: the system of claim 1, wherein the first document input and the second document input are received from one or more fields in a graphical user interface (GUI) associated with the system and displayed on the first user device and/or the second user device and comprise information about which type of property document is being uploaded. [0035] (documents are analyzed to identify essential data fields), [0042] (data input into data fields from inputs received from the plurality of documents), [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data), [0073] (data inputs in fields are displayed to user via interface);
Regarding claim 5: Drucker discloses: the system of claim 1, wherein:
The first timing element includes at least one of a first recordation date or a first deed book location associated with the first document; and [0053] (2 timing elements, i.e. recordation date and/or deed book/page numbers),
The second timing element includes at least one of a second recordation date or a second deed book location associated with the second document. [0053] (2 timing elements, i.e. recordation date and/or deed book/page numbers),
Regarding claim 6: Drucker discloses: the system of claim 5, wherein:
The first deed book location and/or the second deed book location comprise character identifiers configured to arrange one or more deed books chronologically; [0053] (deed book locations, comprising identifying data characters), [0052] (data that is older than another data, i.e. chronological order) [0079] (sort and arrange deed book data in preferred order), [0070] (arrange and group the data instruments into logical components, i.e. chronologically), [0047] (data is indexed by any specified classification, i.e. chronologically);
The one or more deed books are chronologically arranged according to one or more arranging rules; and [0053] (deed book locations, comprising identifying data characters), [0052] (data that is older than another data, i.e. chronological order) [0079] (sort and arrange deed book data in preferred order), [0070] (arrange and group the data instruments into logical components, i.e. chronologically),
The instructions are configured to cause the system to:
Store, in a database, the one or more arranging rules for the one or more deed books; and [0028] “The data loaders 14 index and store the gathered data in a database management system (DBMS) 18 by category or identifiers;”
Arrange, via the one or more processors, the first timing element and the second timing element based on the one or more arranging rules. [0052] (data that is older than another data, i.e. chronological order), [0079] (sort and arrange book data in preferred order), [0070] (arrange and group the data instruments into logical components, i.e. via arranging rules),
Regarding Claim 7: Drucker discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the system to:
Store, in a database, a plurality of title reports comprising the title, the plurality of title reports being accessible by a plurality of user devices and searchable based at least upon property addresses associated with a plurality of real properties; [0004] (by one or more abstractors, i.e. one or more users with their devices), [0052] (more than one user requesting a report search, with their individual devices), [0049] (users computers connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data), [0028] “The data loaders 14 index and store the gathered data in a database management system (DBMS) 18 by category or identifiers,” [0062] (searchable by property address);
Receive, at the one or more processors, an access request for the title from a third user device seeking a copy of the title responsive to purchasing the title; and [0004] (by one or more abstractors, i.e. one or more users with their devices) [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data), [0031] (a user writes a decision support query, i.e. a request to access data, where the query is received by the system), [0013] (receive a request for at least one title document from at least one user), [0083-0084] (the system receives the request for title access from a user’s device), [0085] (revenue generating order management product, i.e. manages the purchase of orders for title documents and revenue generating client management product manages the client’s accounts, with regards to searches and title report requests);
Transmit, via a transceiver, the title to the third user device. [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data), [0084] (transmit the title to the requesting abstractor, i.e. user device), [0084] (received at system and displayed) [0031] (display interface of system), [0029] (CPU), [0086] (transmitted over the internet) and [0030] (a server transmits data to a remote computer) (where the hardware that provides the transmissions is reasonably a transceiver).
Regarding Claim 17: The system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the system to: search a vault of a plurality of property documents stored in a database associated with the system for the real property of interest; [0012] (searching particular databases, i.e. vaults, for data records pertaining to a target real estate parcel),
identify that at least one of the first document or the second document is not stored in the vault of property documents associated with the real property of interest; [0009] “copies of the original document may not be readily obtainable for subsequent verification of the data. Moreover, there will be times when it was not possible for the abstractor to locate every document identified in his initial grantor/grantee search,” [0010] “the government repository;”
transmit, via a transceiver, a notification to the first user device indicating that the at least one of the first document or the second document can be uploaded to the vault; and [0045] “In one preferred embodiment, information retrieval indicators are added to the data upon loading which provides data warehouse 34 with information retrieval logic. These indicators help to estimate data relevance and return only highly ranked data during searching,” (such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have identified the lack of retrievable data and reasonably incorporated an information retrieval indicator, alerting the user’s to the lack of documents, and as such, the availability of the document space to be filled, such that [0041] “If each of steps 38 and 40 has produced an affirmative response, then the instrument category is categorized as “Available” for this county from this provider. If no, the instrument category is categorized as “Not Available” for this county from this provider”);
responsive to receiving an indication from the first user device, add the at least one of the first document or the second document to the vault, wherein the at least one of the first document or the second document is individually accessible by a third party. [0041] “If each of steps 38 and 40 has produced an affirmative response, then the instrument category is categorized as “As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, data can be obtained from various sources, including an official source such as the county clerk or an independent third party data provider … Available” for this county from this provider. If no, the instrument category is categorized as “Not Available” for this county from this provider.”
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 2-3 and 10-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drucker, US20060026136A1, in view of Cantral, US20060039610A1.
Regarding claim 2: Drucker discloses: the system of claim 1, wherein:
The first document is a digital file retrieved by the first user device from a document entity storing a plurality of property documents; and [0004-0005] (by one or more abstractors, i.e. users, perform searches for title data from a plurality of entities storing a plurality of property documents), [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouses where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data), [0030] (receive data at user’s computer), [0031] (data warehouse allows access to a plurality of documents from a plurality of disparate sources, i.e. entities), [0069] (computer viewable image of file, i.e. digital file);
The second document is an image file captured by the first user device and/or the second user device, the image file being associated with a hard copy of a property document. and [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data), [0053] (image file captured from hard copy of property document), [0071] (image provided by a third-party image provider or county clerk in the form of a scanned image of the original, hard copy document), [0069] (computer viewable image of file, i.e. digital file);
Where Drucker does not disclose , Cantral teaches: image capture by the first user device or the second user device. [0029-0030] (a scanner/printer interface connected to a user device, capable of image capture by the device);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the base disclosure of Drucker which incorporates generating title reports from received data including digital files and image files, without explicitly disclosing the capability of capturing images via a user device, with the marked improvements of Cantral, where Cantral discloses a document or image capture device, capable of capturing images. The instant application can be seen as an improvement over Drucker’s base device, such that the prior art of Cantral contains a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure of Drucker, resulting in a combined disclosure that is obvious over the instant application. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved combined disclosure, obvious over the instant application before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claims 3: Drucker discloses: The system of claim 2, [0029] (CPU) [0030] (a system with a data engine, i.e. a processor, rom, i.e. memory, data formatter, i.e. instructions, software, rules used for formatting data, remote computer, user’s system);
The first timing element; 0053] (2 timing elements, i.e. recordation date and/or deed book/page numbers);
The second timing element; 0053] (2 timing elements, i.e. recordation date and/or deed book/page numbers);
The first document input; or [0033] (a plurality of data associated with the property title including at least a complete set of real estate records, documents like judgements, property liens, and other record instruments, all of which are documents), [0035] (data and metadata is created responsive to plurality of document data input received from user devices);
The second document input. [0033] (a plurality of data associated with the property title including at least a complete set of real estate records, documents like judgements, property liens, and other record instruments, all of which are documents), [0035] (data and metadata is created responsive to plurality of document data input received from user devices);
Where Drucker does not disclose, Cantral teaches: wherein the instructions are configured to cause the system to use optical character recognition (OCR) to identify elements, or inputs from documents. [0008] (optical character recognition (OCR) is utilized to recognize text in images and documents, allowing them to be saved as digital documents with extracted information that may be used in other processes as meaningful text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the base disclosure of Drucker which incorporates generating title reports from received data including digital files and image files, without explicitly disclosing the capability to use optical character recognition (OCR)to identify elements or inputs from documents, with the marked improvements of Cantral, where Cantral discloses optical character recognition (OCR), capable to identify elements or inputs from documents. The instant application can be seen as an improvement over Drucker’s base device, such that the prior art of Cantral contains a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure of Drucker, resulting in a combined disclosure that is obvious over the instant application. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved combined disclosure, obvious over the instant application before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 10: Drucker discloses: [0029] (CPU) [0030] (a system with a data engine, i.e. a processor, rom, i.e. memory, data formatter, i.e. instructions, software, rules used for formatting data, remote computer, user’s system), and [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data);
Receive, at the one or more processors, a request to generate the title, the request comprising information related to a real property of interest; [0004 and 0083-0084] (order is placed/executed by one or more abstractors, i.e. users, including a request for a title report for a particular property, the request is sent to and received by the system processors), [0016 and 0018] (systems for generating a title report), [0030] (data engine, i.e. a processor, report builder application for generating title reports);
received at a graphical user interface (GUI) associated with a title system, via one or more processors and via a transceiver; [0084] (received at system and displayed) [0031] (display interface of system), [0029] (CPU), [0086] (transmitted over the internet) and [0030] (a server transmits data to a remote computer) (where the hardware that provides the transmissions is reasonably a transceiver);
Receive, at the one more processors, a first document associated with the real property of interest, the first document comprising first metadata created responsive to a first document input received from a first user device, the first document input comprising information about which type of property document is being uploaded, the first metadata including a first timing element; [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data); [0033] (system accumulates, i.e. receives, a plurality of data associated with the property title including at least a complete set of real estate records, documents like judgements, property liens, and other record instruments, all of which are documents), [0035] (dates and date ranges of collected data and metadata is created responsive to plurality of document data input received from user devices, and indexing and partitioning schemes are applied), [0004] (by one or more abstractors, i.e. users, perform searches for title data);
Receive, at the one more processors, a second document associated with the real property of interest, the second document comprising second metadata created responsive to a second document input received from the first user device and/or a second user device, the second metadata including a second timing element, wherein the second document is file captured by image capture device; and [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data); [0033] (system accumulates, i.e. receives, a plurality of data associated with the property title including at least a complete set of real estate records, documents like judgements, property liens, and other record instruments, all of which are documents), [0035] (dates and date ranges of collected data and metadata is created responsive to plurality of document data input received from user devices, and indexing and partitioning schemes are applied), [0004] (by one or more abstractors, i.e. users, perform searches for title data), [0070] (scanner captured hard copy document, i.e. “scanned images of the original documents” and [0071] “a scanned image of the document must be viewed”);
Generate, via the one or more processors, the title to include the first document and the second document appearing within the title in an order based on at least one of: [0079] (arrange documents in title report), [0080] (generate a report, the generated report including a plurality of documents that appear withing a title record);
(i) the first timing element and the second timing element; or [0053] (2 timing elements, i.e. recordation date and/or deed book/page numbers),
(ii) a standardized order for title documentation. [0079] (standard/preferred order for documents in title report).
Where Drucker does not disclose , Cantral teaches: An image capture device configured to capture an image file associated with a hard copy of a property document; and [0029-0030] (a scanner/printer interface connected to a user device, capable of image capture by the device);
the second document is the image file captured by the image capture device; [0029-0030] (a scanner/printer interface connected to a user device, capable of image capture by the device), [Figure 4] (receive data request, receive documents/images, deliver images);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the base disclosure of Drucker which incorporates generating title reports from received data including digital files and image files, without explicitly disclosing the capability of capturing images via a user device, with the marked improvements of Cantral, where Cantral discloses a document or image capture device, capable of capturing images. The instant application can be seen as an improvement over Drucker’s base device, such that the prior art of Cantral contains a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure of Drucker, resulting in a combined disclosure that is obvious over the instant application. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved combined disclosure, obvious over the instant application before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 11: Drucker discloses: The use device of claim 10, wherein: [0029] (CPU) [0030] (a system with a data engine, i.e. a processor, rom, i.e. memory, data formatter, i.e. instructions, software, rules used for formatting data, remote computer, user’s system), and [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data);
The first document is a digital file retrieved by the first user device from a document entity storing a plurality of property documents; and [0004-0005] (by one or more abstractors, i.e. users, perform searches for title data from a plurality of entities storing a plurality of property documents), [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouses where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data), [0030] (receive data at user’s computer), [0031] (data warehouse allows access to a plurality of documents from a plurality of disparate sources, i.e. entities), [0069] (computer viewable image of file, i.e. digital file);
The second document is an image file captured by the first user device and/or the second user device, the image file being associated with a hard copy of a property document. and [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data), [0053] (image file captured from hard copy of property document), [0071] (image provided by a third-party image provider or county clerk in the form of a scanned image of the original, hard copy document), [0069] (computer viewable image of file, i.e. digital file);
Where Drucker does not disclose , Cantral teaches further comprising an image capture device, and image file captured by the image capture device. (Where the image capture device, as claimed, must only be capable of capturing an image file), [0029-0030] (a scanner/printer interface connected to a user device, capable of image capture by the device);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the base disclosure of Drucker which incorporates generating title reports from received data including digital files and image files, without explicitly disclosing the capability of capturing images via a user device, with the marked improvements of Cantral, where Cantral discloses a document or image capture device, capable of capturing images. The instant application can be seen as an improvement over Drucker’s base device, such that the prior art of Cantral contains a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure of Drucker, resulting in a combined disclosure that is obvious over the instant application. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved combined disclosure, obvious over the instant application before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 12: Drucker discloses: The user device of claim 11, wherein instructions are configured to identify at least one of: [0029] (CPU) [0030] (a system with a data engine, i.e. a processor, rom, i.e. memory, data formatter, i.e. instructions, software, rules used for formatting data, remote computer, user’s system), and [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data)
The first timing element; 0053] (2 timing elements, i.e. recordation date and/or deed book/page numbers);
The second timing element; 0053] (2 timing elements, i.e. recordation date and/or deed book/page numbers);
The first document input; or (a plurality of data associated with the property title including at least a complete set of real estate records, documents like judgements, property liens, and other record instruments, all of which are documents), [0035] (data and metadata is created responsive to plurality of document data input received from user devices);
The second document input. [0033] (a plurality of data associated with the property title including at least a complete set of real estate records, documents like judgements, property liens, and other record instruments, all of which are documents), [0035] (data and metadata is created responsive to plurality of document data input received from user devices);
the user device; [0004] (by one or more abstractors, i.e. one or more users with their devices);
Where Drucker does not disclose, Cantral teaches: wherein the instructions are configured to cause the system to use optical character recognition (OCR) to identify elements or inputs from documents. [0008] (optical character recognition (OCR) is utilized to recognize text in images and documents, allowing them to be saved as digital documents with extracted information that may be used in other processes as meaningful text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the base disclosure of Drucker which incorporates generating title reports from received data including digital files and image files, without explicitly disclosing the capability of capturing images via a user device, with the marked improvements of Cantral, where Cantral discloses a document or image capture device, capable of capturing images. The instant application can be seen as an improvement over Drucker’s base device, such that the prior art of Cantral contains a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure of Drucker, resulting in a combined disclosure that is obvious over the instant application. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved combined disclosure, obvious over the instant application before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 13: Drucker discloses: the system of claim 10, wherein the first document input and the second document input are received from one or more fields in a graphical user interface (GUI) associated with the system and displayed on the first user device and/or the second user device and comprise information about which type of property document is being uploaded. [0035] (documents are analyzed to identify essential data fields), [0042] (data input into data fields from inputs received from the plurality of documents), [0049] (user’s computer connected to data warehouse where a user may send, receive, view, transmit requests, searches, or data), [0073] (data inputs in fields are displayed to user via interface);
Only for claim 13: the user device; [0004] (by one or more abstractors, i.e. one or more users with their devices).
Regarding claim 14: Drucker discloses: the system of claim 10, wherein:
The first timing element includes at least one of a first recordation date or a first deed book location associated with the first document; and [0053] (2 timing elements, i.e. recordation date and/or deed book/page numbers),
The second timing element includes at least one of a second recordation date or a second deed book location associated with the second document. [0053] (2 timing elements, i.e. recordation date and/or deed book/page numbers),
the user device; [0004] (by one or more abstractors, i.e. one or more users with their devices);
Regarding claim 15: Drucker discloses: the system of claim 14, wherein:
The first deed book location and/or the second deed book location comprise character identifiers configured to arrange one or more deed books chronologically; [0053] (deed book locations, comprising identifying data characters), [0052] (data that is older than another data, i.e. chronological order) [0079] (sort and arrange deed book data in preferred order), [0070] (arrange and group the data instruments into logical components, i.e. chronologically), [0047] (data is indexed by any specified classification, i.e. chronologically);
The one or more deed books are chronologically arranged according to one or more arranging rules; and [0053] (deed book locations, comprising identifying data characters), [0052] (data that is older than another data, i.e. chronological order) [0079] (sort and arrange deed book data in preferred order), [0070] (arrange and group the data instruments into logical components, i.e. chronologically),
The instructions are configured to cause the system to:
Store, in a database, the one or more arranging rules for the one or more deed books; and [0028] “The data loaders 14 index and store the gathered data in a database management system (DBMS) 18 by category or identifiers;”
Arrange, via the one or more processors, the first timing element and the second timing element based on the one or more arranging rules. [0052] (data that is older than another data, i.e. chronological order), [0079] (sort and arrange book data in preferred order), [0070] (arrange and group the data instruments into logical components, i.e. via arranging rules),
the user device; [0004] (by one or more abstractors, i.e. one or more users with their devices).
Regarding Claim 16: Drucker discloses: The user device of claim 10, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the user device to receive, at the one or more processors and via the GUI, a confirmation to provide the title for purchase on a cloud server operated by the title system. [Figure 3, 32] (a confirmation of order of title is provided to user).
Regarding Claim 18. (New) The user device of Claim 10, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the user device to receive, at the one or more processors, a bid from the title system requesting the title for the real property of interest, the bid transmitted to a plurality of user devices; and [0004 and 0083-0084] (order is placed/executed by one or more abstractors, i.e. users, including a request for a title report for a particular property, the request is sent to and received by the system processors), [0016 and 0018] (systems for generating a title report), [0030] (data engine, i.e. a processor, report builder application for generating title reports) [0084] (alternatively, the system may post the bid, i.e. request for report);
wherein the user device is selected from the plurality of user devices based on a proximity of the user device to a location of the real property of interest. [0004] “Other governmental sources may also be searched, depending on the location and type of property,” [0041] “An alternative provider must then be located,” [0062] “By utilizing this third party data, a search according to the present invention can determine a unique property identifier for a particular property (by address or owner name), and then retrieve all of the instruments indexed with this property identifier. Since a user is generally interested in county clerk data, the instruments retrieved from the third party data are used to point to the corresponding instrument in the county clerk data, and these instruments are presented to the user,” [0064] “First, a tax assessor database 18 d having property records indexed by address and owner name is searched… Accordingly, a searcher would input a name and/or a property address (steps 76, 78) and the system would search for the entered information (step 80). The system presents the user with a list of properties satisfying the search criteria (step 82) and the user selects the correct property (step 84),” (while proximity is not explicitly used to select a user device, user devices are chosen and searches are conducted based on address, it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate user device locations addresses in the searches to connect closest devices within the proximity of a location).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drucker, US20060026136A1, in view of Ubalde, US20110276534A1.
Regarding Claim 8: Drucker discloses: The system of claim 7, purchase a title report; [0085] (revenue generating order management product, i.e. manages the purchase of orders for title documents and revenue generating client management product manages the client’s accounts, with regards to searches and title report requests);
Where Drucker does not disclose, Ubalde teaches: wherein the instructions are configured to cause the system to display, via the one or more processors, the plurality of real properties on a map within a graphical user interface displayed on the plurality of user devices, wherein a location of each of the plurality of real properties is superimposed on the map, and wherein the location of each of the plurality of real properties is selectable to view a title report associated with a selected property), [0037] (display on a graphical user interface, a map with property locations that match a search),[0071] (map with property information superimposed on the map), [0036] (selectable properties and dynamic user defined specific reports), [0079] (the maps may be useful for title and real estate businesses and related industries, where the dynamic reports that may incorporate user specific reports, like a title report transaction assistance related to site selection analysis and property sale/lease., upon selection) [0038] (after the property search returns the property, the application generates detailed property reports).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the base invention of Drucker with the map improvements of Ubalde. The prior art contains a known technique that is applicable to the base invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and an improved disclosure.
Regarding Claim 9: Drucker discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the system to:
Receive, at the one or more processors, a partial address for the real property of interest; and [0062] (receive a search for an address identifier, which could be a partial address data);
Where Drucker does not disclose, Ubalde teaches: Auto-fill, via the one or more processors and a mapping application programming interface (API) connecting the one or more processors to a third-party map service, a full address for the real property of interest to confirm a recording address for the real property of interest is accurate and consistent for all user devices accessing a database associated with the system. [0018] (display property address for a property that was searched by the user), [0037] (a user’s search by at least address data returns property data for properties that match the submitted data, automatically, such that the user may drill down to find the property they were searching for using the property address data that may be partial data; selecting the map presents property data such that the user can check accuracy and consistency of data recorded for the particular property of interest at said address).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the base invention of Drucker with the map improvements of Ubalde. The prior art contains a known technique that is applicable to the base invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and an improved disclosure.
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 ANGELA HATCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1393. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
ANGELA HATCH
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/ANGELA HATCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights