DETAILED ACTION
Response received on April 13, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 17, and 25 have been amended. Therefore, Claims 1-32 are pending.
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
This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on December 09, 2024 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 04/13/2026. Claims 1-32 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/974,624 was filed on 12/09/2024 and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 63/608,210, filed on December 9, 2023.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of April 13, 2026 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action. The examiner acknowledges the amendments made to Claim 1, 17, and 25.
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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-25 are directed to a method (process), and Claims 25-32 are directed to a system (machine/apparatus). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 17 and 25. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A method for delivering message content to a client engaged in a real estate transaction, the method comprising: (a) providing a system application server including a memory for storing processor instructions and a processor for executing the processor instructions; (b) providing a system session server, in communication with the system application server, the system session server configured to establish and maintain a system session with the client and generate a client user interface accessible by the client, the client user interface including a plurality of assignable display sections; (c) providing a user profile database, in communication with the system application server, the user profile database including a client profile record of the client, the client profile record of the client comprising open-access engagement tools that operate through rule-based logic rather than behavioral tracking and without personal contact information and an anonymized data tracking code that maintains session continuity for users whose identity has not been established from upfront contact data collection, the client profile record of the client providing for personalized engagement without requiring personal contact information, gathering user input preferences and delivering personalized content based on user input preferences rather than inferred data; (d) providing a messaging application server, in communication with the system application server, configured to retrieve and send message content from a message record in a message database to the client user interface; (e) retrieving, via the messaging application server from the message database, the message content from the message record; and (f) transmitting, via the system session server, retrieved message content configured to be displayed at an assigned display section of a plurality of display sections of the client user interface based on at least one of (i) information in the client profile record, and (ii) an update of information to the client profile record.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of delivering targeted message content to a client based on stored profile information and updates. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer) the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the system application server, system session server, this claim encompasses actions such as establishing a client session, generating a client user interface with assignable display sections, retrieving message content from a message database, and transmitting the message for display based on information in or updates to the client profile record, which are steps that could be performed by real estate agents or transaction coordinators as part of existing client communication and transaction management. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “a system application server”, “processor”, “memory”, “the system session server”, “interface”, “user profile database”, “message database”, “a messaging application server”, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1, 17, and 25 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). In particular, Claim 1 recites additional elements of “a system application server”, “processor”, “memory”, “the system session server”, “interface”, “a messaging application server”, “user profile database”, “message database”. Claim 17 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1. Claim 25 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements are considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. The limitations reciting “establish and maintain a system session” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (“establish and maintain a system session”). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, Claims 1, 17, and 25 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) 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 generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1, 17, and 25 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 2-6, 18-22, 26-30, recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the plurality of display sections further comprise a first assignable section configured to display subsequent action information about a client real estate transaction, wherein the message record further includes assigned section information for the message content configured to direct the message content to be displayed at an assigned display section corresponding to the assigned display section, wherein the information comprises at least one of personal client information and client property information, wherein the update of information to the client profile record comprises progression step information from a predetermined plurality of progressive real estate transaction steps, and wherein the message content displayed at the assigned display section of the plurality of display sections is based on display section information in the message record. The dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 7-15, 23, 31 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the message content comprises a notice of initiating a client agent matching process, wherein the message content comprises a notice of a client agent proposed match with the client, wherein the message content comprises a confirmation of a client agent match with the client, wherein the message content comprises a notice of one of a submitted offer or a received offer, wherein the message content comprises a notice of one of a submitted backup offer or a received backup offer, the message content comprises a notice of one of a rejected offer or an offer rejection, wherein the message content comprises a notice of one of a submitted counteroffer or a received counteroffer, wherein the message content comprises a notice of one of an accepted offer or an offer acceptance, wherein the message content comprises a solicitation for additional services. The dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 16, 24, 32, recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the solicitation for additional services is coordinated for transmission to the client user interface based on the update of information to the client profile record including progression step information from a predetermined plurality of progressive real estate transaction steps. The dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to the subject matter which is present in independent claims 1, 17, and 25.
In regards to Claims 1, 17, 25 with respect to the prior art, the closest reference appears to be Richards et al. (US20200184583) in view of Stack et al. (US 20140201007), further in view of Camhi et al. (US20180053227).
Richards et al. teaches a method for delivering message content to a client engaged in a real estate transaction, the method comprising: (See Abstract & FIG 1) (a) providing a system application server including a memory for storing processor instructions and a processor for executing the processor instructions; (See [0050])(b) providing a system session server, in communication with the system application server, the system session server configured to establish and maintain a system session with the client and generate a client user interface accessible by the client, the client user interface including a plurality of assignable display sections; (See [0151], [0112], [0162]) (c) providing a user profile database, in communication with the system application server, the user profile database including a client profile record of the client, the client profile record of the client comprising open-access engagement tools; ( [0052]- [0054], [0056]) (d) providing a messaging application server, in communication with the system application server, configured to retrieve and send message content from a message record in a message database to the client user interface; (See [0116]) (e) retrieving, via the messaging application server from the message database, the message content from the message record; (See [0117]) (f) transmitting, via the system session server, retrieved message content configured to be displayed [at an assigned display section of a plurality of display sections of the client user interface] based on at least one of (i) information in the client profile record, and (ii) an update of information to the client profile record (See [0078], See [0053], [0080].) Stack et al. teaches: the client profile record of the client comprising an anonymized data tracking code (See [0006], [0009]). Camhi et al. teaches displayed at an assigned display section of a plurality of display sections of the client user interface (See FIG 3 & 5, Also See [0066], See [0087]).
However, Richards et al. in view of Stack et al., further in view of Camhi et al. alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious the client profile record of the client comprising open-access engagement tools that operate through rule-based logic rather than behavioral tracking and without personal contact information, and an anonymized data tracking code that maintains session continuity for users whose identity has not been established from upfront contact data collection, the client profile record of the client providing for personalized engagement without requiring personal contact information, gathering user input preferences and delivering personalized content based on user input preferences rather than inferred data , when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1, 17, and 25 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 13 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that the Office Action states that the claimed invention is an "abstract idea of delivering targeted message content to a client based on stored profile information and updates." Office Action at 2-6. That analysis is incorrect. The claims overcome the Section 101 application on several fundamental grounds: the claimed and specific, technically precise architecture for capturing, structuring, and storing a multi-dimensional client record of an anonymous client that enables automated messaging and other results that no method or system (human or automated) could provide before. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the applicant’s assertion is unsupported by the claim language. The claims do not recite any specific improvement in how data is stored, processed, or transmitted, nor do they recite a new networking, database, or session management technique. Instead, the claimed merely use generic computer components to perform the abstract idea of delivering personalized message content based on stored profile information, using anonymous profiles and user preferences. Applicant further argues that the Office Action (p. 2-6) makes an error by not correctly applying Section 101 to the actual elements of the claims. The claimed invention is directed to a new architecture, applied in new methods and systems, that when implemented create new computer systems that capture, structure, store and use in a new architecture categories of data records, new output, that could not exist before - rather than Alice, which is using a computer to perform something humans already do. The invention provides a new output class. A human cannot produce the client record or the third-data-state record, as described herein. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that although the Applicant’s characterizes the claimed invention as a “new architecture” that produces “new output”, the claims do not recite a specific improvement to computer technology or to the operation of the recited servers, databases, or networking components. Rather, the claims recite the use of generic computer components to collect, organize, store, update, and utilize client-related information, including anonymous client information and user preferences to personalize message delivery. The creation or maintenance of a client record, regardless of how Applicant characterizes that record, constitutes the generation and storage of information and does not, by itself, reflect an improvement in computer functionality or another technology. Applicant argues that the mechanisms that produce them - defined schema and deterministic rule-based engagement executed before identity is established, generating a schema-defined output complete at session close - is the technical apparatus. The record itself is the technical result. This is statutory subject matter and not an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the Applicant’s assertion that the clients record itself is a technical result is not persuasive. The claimed client record is data generated and maintained in support of the abstract idea of managing client engagement and delivering personalized communications. The claimed do not recite any specific improvement to the manner in which the data is structured, stored, or processed that improves the functioning of a computer or another technological field, but instead use generic computing components to implement the abstract idea. Applicant is reminded that eligibility under 35 USC 101 does not turn on whether a human could practically generate or maintain the claimed volume of information. Here, the claims automate the organization of client information and the delivery of personalized message content without improving the underlying computer technology itself.
Applicant further argues that Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft, 822 F3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) is instructive. MPEP 2106(II). The Court held that claims were patent eligible because they were directed to a specific improvement to the ways computers operate, embodied in a claimed "self-referential table" for a database, which the prior art did not contain. This reasoning applies to Applicant's claims, with their novel and non-obvious capturing, structuring, and storing a client record with "open-access engagement tools", "anonymized data tracking code", and "personalized engagement without requiring personal contact information", that result in a new architecture with a new output-class, that was previously never contemplated or applied to produce useful records and results. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(a)(I). This invention is the same type of specific improvement in computer capability instead of an abstract idea where computers are invoked as mere tools. As in Enfish, with this new architecture, there is no need to further proceed in the Alice analysis. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicants characterization of the claimed invention as a “new architecture”, “new output cases”, or “technical result” is not supported by the claim language, which merely recites generic computer components used to collect, organize, store, and utilize client information to personalize message delivery. Unlike Enfish, the claims do not recite a specific improvement to the operation of a computer, database, or other technology, but instead use generic computing components to automate the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant further argues that The Applicant's invention provides an architecture in response to a specific technical constraint from privacy legislation events - not as a business preference - and produces a specific technical result that no prior system can replicate. Specifically, the technical constraint is that privacy regulations prohibit behavioral tracking of anonymous users in regulated industries. This is a legal constraint on system architecture. Any system that uses behavioral inference to engage anonymous users is legally impermissible in this context. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicants reliance on privacy legislation reflects a legal or business constraint rather than a technological one. The claims merely apply generic computer components to implement privacy compliant client engagement rules and do not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality or another technological field. Therefore, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the technical result Applicant provides, and the prior art does not, is a structured, analytically complete intent record generated from an anonymous session using deterministic rule- based logic, with no behavioral tracking, no identity requirement, and standalone analytical value. This data type did not exist before. It cannot be produced by any method or system that uses behavioral inference or requires authentication before capture. Applicant's invention maps directly to the Enfish principle: the claims are directed to a specific technical mechanism that solves a specific technical problem created by a specific technical constraint. That is not an abstract idea. It is a technical invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claimed “intent record” is merely information generated and maintained in support of the abstract idea and does not constitute a technological improvement to computer functionality. Unlike Enfish, the claims do not improve how a computer stores, retrieves, or processes data, but instead use generic computer components to organize client information and personalize message delivery. Therefore, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant further argues that Like Applicant's invention, in McRO: "'It is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that improved the existing technological process' by allowing the automation of further tasks." The Court held that claims directed to a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology are not abstract, even when implemented in software. This applies directly to Applicant's claims that use structured record creation that allows for the automation of further tasks (e.g., messaging with anonymous clients), and deterministic routing logic - such as the specific rule-based mechanism that captures intent before identity is established and routes to conclusions based on explicitly expressed responses - is precisely the type of rule-based improvement McRO holds is patent eligible. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s reliance on McRO is unpersuasive because the claimed rule-based logic does not improve computer functionality or another technological process, but instead governs the collection and use of client information to automate personalized messaging. Additionally, unlike McRO, the claimed rules implement the abstract idea of managing client communications using generic computer components rather than improving the underlying technology.
Applicant further argues that by the Office Action not taking into account the features and advantages as they are described (e.g., Applicant's specification at [0126]-[0154]) and claimed, and actually giving them inapplicable constructions at a high level of abstraction untethered to their descriptions, the exceptions to Section 101 were incorrectly permitted to swallow the rule, which the Court in Enfish explicitly warned should not be done. MPEP 2106.04(II). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims have been evaluated as a whole and in view of the specification, but the recited features do not improve the operation of a computer or other technology as required by Enfish. Instead, the claims use generic computer components to implement the abstract idea of managing client information and personalized communications. Therefore, the claims are not characterized at an impermissibly high level of abstraction. Applicant further argues that the Office Action is also incorrect because it misconstrues the specification and the claims. The specification and claims are specifically directed to a technical solution to a technical problem and are not correctly characterized as an abstract business method for organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that although Applicant characterizes the invention as a technical solution, the claim limitations merely implement business rules governing client engagement and personalized message delivery using generic computer components. Therefore, the claims are properly characterized as being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and do not recite an improvement to computer functionality or another technological field. Applicant further argues that the amendments to claims 1, 17 and 25 highlight these technical solutions that are specific and practical and in no way abstract. Additional important technical solutions are the specific user interface configurations provided, as supported by the specification and the figures, and the automated message system, which each also go far beyond conventional computer implementation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that although the specification describes particular user interface configurations and an automated messaging system, the eligibility analysis is based on the claimed invention. As claimed, these additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer components and do not provide a specific technological improvement to computer functionality or another technological field. Applicant further argues that importantly, the claims are directed to an inventive technical solution that creates structured, analytically valuable data records from anonymous user sessions without relying on behavioral tracking or requiring identity as a prerequisite. This is a new and non-obvious technical solution to a technical problem that has not been solved before. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the alleged technical solution relates to the collection and organization of client information under particular business rules rather than an improvement to computer technology itself. Examiner notes that although the claims generate records from anonymous sessions, they do not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of the recited computing components or another technological field. Therefore, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention provides new, non-obvious and core contributions, in the capturing, structuring, and storing of multi-dimensional client records resulting in a newly created, useful and inventive technical architecture. The claimed record is not waiting for identity to become useful - it is already useful when used in the claimed methods/systems. Identity is optional enrichment, not a prerequisite for the record's existence or value. Appreciation of this aspect of the invention's architecture takes it far away from any assertion that it is "abstract." The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s assertions regarding the utility or novelty of the claimed eligibility under 35 USC 101. The claims merely generate and use information according to business rules implemented on generic computer components and do not recite a specific technological improvement to the operation of a computer, database, or other technology. Therefore, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims do not amount to a technological improvement and fail to provide an inventive concept. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-32 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection are noted. Applicant asserts that nothing in Richards, Stack, or Camhi, however, teaches or suggests the newly amended claim limitations. Hence, the above-noted feature of claim 1 is a distinction over the prior art. The examiner finds the applicants argument to be persuasive. Richards et al. in view of Stack et al., further in view of Camhi alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious the client profile record of the client comprising open-access engagement tools that operate through rule-based logic rather than behavioral tracking and without personal contact information, and an anonymized data tracking code that maintains session continuity for users whose identity has not been established from upfront contact data collection, the client profile record of the client providing for personalized engagement without requiring personal contact information, gathering user input preferences and delivering personalized content based on user input preferences rather than inferred data , when the claim is considered as a whole, when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1, 17, and 25 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art. Accordingly, the examiner withdraws the corresponding prior art rejections based on that subject matter.
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
extension fee 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 date of this final
action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
