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
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 04/08/2026.
Claims 1-35 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1, 18, and 27 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
ApplIcant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-30 of Applicant’s response, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 14, 16, and 21-22, that a human could not perform the steps recited as abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant provides no further indication as to why a human could not perform these steps, and such a bare allegation, without providing support, does not rebut Examiner’s prima facie case. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 15, that the claims recite a technical improvement to a technical problem, similar to Enfish. Examiner respectfully disagrees, notes that Enfish provided an improvement to computer functionality rather than a technical solution to a technical problem, notes that the need for anonymity does not specifically arise in the realm of computer networks (and is therefore not a technical problem), and notes that the use of a tracking code would bring about the solution if practiced outside the realm of computer networks (and is therefore not a technical solution). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 22, that the claims are eligible under step 2A prong 2 since they impose a new inventive technical solution with a novel claimed architecture. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that nothing about the server, application, and database amounts to a novel architecture. The requirement that such elements perform abstract idea steps does not bring about a novel architecture, but rather amounts to the mere requirement to implement the abstract idea on this set of generic computer components. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 22-23 and again on page 29 that the claims are eligible under step 2B since the claims produce a new class of record that generic computer do not produce, and therefore adds something other than that which is well-understood routine and conventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the claims do not recite any “machine-consumable, compliance-verified, analytically rankable record” or make any mention of manual administrative review. Furthermore the mere use of a database record amounts to recitation of one or more abstract ideas, and therefore does not represent an “additional element.” Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 24-29, that the Examiner each component in Examiner’s analysis. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully reiterates his position that the claims do no more than recite one or more abstract ideas, along with the requirement to implement them on a set of generic computer components.
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 1-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 18, and 27 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, a process, and a machine, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 18, and 27 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 18, and 27, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
(e) retrieving. . . from the message database, the message content from the stored message; (claims 1, 18, and 27; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could retrieve this information from a database)
that maintain(s) 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; (claims 1, 18, and 27; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could, but for the requirement to perform this step using a set of generic computer components, maintain session continuity for a user using an anonymized tracking code, gather user preferences, and deliver personalized content based on these preferences; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial real estate transaction coordinators would perform this step in anonymously coordinating real estate transactions)
and (f) transmitting. . . retrieved message content configured to be displayed at an assigned display section of the plurality of assignable display sections. . . based on at least one of (i) information in the client profile record, and (ii) an update of information to the client profile record. (claims 1, 18, and 27; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could, but for the requirement to send this information electronically and display it on the given interfaces, send and display this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial real estate transaction coordinators would send messages of this type to clients and buyer and display them in this manner in coordinating real estate transactions)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
(a) providing a system application server including a memory for storing processor instructions and a processor for executing the stored processor instructions; (claims 1, 18, 27; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
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. . . (claims 1, 18, 27; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
(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 and an anonymized data tracking code; (claims 1, 18, 27; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
(d) providing a messaging application server, in communication with the system application server, configured to retrieve and send message content from a stored message record in a message database to the client user interface and the client agent user interface; (claims 1, 18, 27; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . via the messaging application server. . . (claims 1, 18, 27; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . .via the system session server. . . (claims 1, 18, 27; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . .of the client user interface and the client agent user interface. . . (claims 1, 18, 27; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 18, and 27 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-17, 19-26, and 28-35, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2, 19, and 28:
wherein the plurality of display sections further comprise a first assignable section configured to display subsequent action information about the client real estate transaction, a second assignable section configured to display information about one of a client action recommendation or a client service offering regarding the client real estate transaction, and a third assignable section configured to display personalized client reports.
The broadest reasonable interpretation merely alters the content of the data and the sections in which the data is displayed in the abstract ideas above, and therefore this limitation further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 3, 20, and 29:
wherein the stored message record further includes assigned section information for the message content configured to direct the message content to be displayed at the assigned section corresponding to the assigned section information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information stored in the stored message record, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgement could display information in certain sections based on the content of a received message.
Claims 4, 21, and 30:
wherein the information comprises at least one of personal client information and client property information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information stored in the client profile record, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 5, 22, and 31:
wherein the update of information to the client profile record comprises progression step information from a predetermined plurality of progressive real estate transaction steps.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information stored in the client profile record, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 6, 23, and 32:
wherein the update of information to the client profile record is initiated by the client agent on the client agent user interface regarding the progressive step information from the predetermined plurality of progressive real estate transaction steps.
As outlined above, regarding the use of the user interface, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. Regarding the initiation of the updating of a profile record by client agent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could input progressive real estate transaction step information in order to update a client profile record; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial real estate transaction coordinators would receive updates to progressive transaction steps and update client records in coordinating real estate transactions.
Claims 7, 24, and 33:
wherein the message displayed at the predetermined section of the plurality of display sections is based on display section information in the stored message.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information displayed in the display sections, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 8:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of initiating a client agent matching process.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information sent to the client or agent, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 9:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of a client agent proposed match with the client.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information sent to the client or agent, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 10:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a confirmation of a client agent match with the client.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information sent to the client or agent, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 11:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of one of a submitted offer or a received offer.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information sent to the client or agent, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 12:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of one of a submitted backup offer or a received backup offer.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information sent to the client or agent, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 13:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of one of a rejected offer or an offer rejection.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information sent to the client or agent, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 14:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of one of a submitted counteroffer or a received counteroffer.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information sent to the client or agent, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 15:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of one of an accepted offer or an offer acceptance.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information sent to the client or agent, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 16, 25, and 34:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a solicitation for additional services.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of information sent to the client or agent, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 17, 26, and 35:
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 information including progression step information from a predetermined plurality of progressive real estate transaction steps.
As outlined above, regarding the use of the user interface, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. Regarding the initiation of the updating of a profile record by client agent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could coordinate a message for sending based on updates to client profile information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial real estate transaction coordinators would coordinate a message for sending based on updates to client profile information in coordinating real estate transactions.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-17, 19-26, and 28-35, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 3-5, 7-10, 18, 20-22, 24, 27, 29-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polston et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20140222620; hereinafter "Polston") in view of Bui et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20190080425; hereinafter "Bui") further in view of Chien, Herman (U.S. Patent No. US 7,551,913 B1; hereinafter "Chien").
As per claim 1, Polston teaches:
A method for delivering message content to a client and a client agent both engaged in a real estate transaction of the client, the method comprising:
Polston teaches a system and method for integrating real estate transaction messaging into a dedicated platform. (Polston: abstract)
With respect to the following limitation:
(a) providing a system application server including a memory for storing processor instructions and a processor for executing the stored processor instructions;
Polston teaches a dedicated platform server 10 (a system session server) which may provide the user interfaces to the client and agent devices, wherein the dedicated platform server may be in communication with multiple different user profile databases. (Polston: paragraph [0019-20], Fig. 1-2) Polston further teaches a messaging server in the form of a social network platform server which may retrieve and store messaging content for the users. (Polston: paragraphs [0023, 25], Figs. 1-2) Polston, however, does not appear to explicitly teach a system application server which coordinates between the two.
Bui, however, teaches an application server 105 (analogous to the dedicated platform server 10 of Polston, mapped to the system session server) which may act as a go-between for a real estate provider database server 110 (a system application server) and a social networking server 131. (Bui: paragraph [0028], Fig. 1A) Bui further teaches that each server may comprise a processor which executes instructions stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Bui: paragraph [0108-110], Fig. 9) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Polston or by Bui. Adding the application server of Bui to the server architecture taught by Polston does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Polston. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Bui with the teachings of Polston since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Polston in view of Bui further teaches:
(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 each of the client and the client agent and generate a client user interface accessible by the client and a client agent user interface accessible by the client agent, both user interfaces configured to include a plurality of assignable display sections;
Polston teaches a dedicated platform server 10 (a system session server) which may provide the user interfaces to the client and agent devices, wherein the dedicated platform server may be in communication with multiple different user profile databases. (Polston: paragraph [0019-20], Fig. 1-2) Polston teaches a client user interface with various display sections which may allow for assignment of information. (Polston: paragraph [0043-48], Fig. 3) Polston teaches an agent user interface with various display sections which may allow for assignment of information. (Polston: paragraph [56-64], Fig. 7)
With respect to the following limitation:
(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;
Polston teaches that user information may be stored in user specific databases which include respective records of the client and agent, wherein the database may store user input preferences and favorite properties (open access engagement tools which operate through rule based logic as indicated by paragraph [0038] of the present application's specification). (Polston: paragraph [0020, 37-39], Figs. 1-3, see Fig. 3 showing a rule-based "show only favorites button") Polston, however, does not appear to explicitly teach the use of an anonymized data tracking code, rather than collecting personal contact information.
Chien, however, teaches that an anonymized user profile identifier in the form of a hash of a device identifier may be used, wherein the profile may store user rule-based, not activity based, preference data for delivering content to the user, wherein the content delivered to the user may be based on user preference data stored in the user profile. (Chien: col. 3 lines 1-15, col. 4 lines 1-32, col. 5 lines 23-67, col. 6 lines 1-7; Fig. 4) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Polston in view of Bui, or by Chien. Using the anonymizing of the profile taught by Chien does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Polston in view of Bui. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Chien with the teachings of Polston in view of Bui, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien further teaches:
(d) providing a messaging application server, in communication with the system application server, configured to retrieve and send message content from a stored message record in a message database to the client user interface and the client agent user interface;
Polston further teaches a messaging server in the form of a social network platform server which may retrieve and store messaging content for the users and display them on the user interfaces. (Polston: paragraphs [0023, 25], Figs. 1-2, 3, 7)
(e) retrieving, via the messaging application server from the message database, the message content from the stored message;
Polston further teaches a messaging server in the form of a social network platform server which may retrieve and store messaging content for the users and display them on the user interfaces. (Polston: paragraphs [0023, 25], Figs. 1-2, 3, 7) Bui, as outlined above, teaches that the social networking server 131 may be in communication with the system application server 110. (Bui: paragraph [0028], Fig. 1A) The motivation to combine Bui persists.
and (f) transmitting, via the system session server, retrieved message content configured to be displayed at an assigned display section of the plurality of assignable display sections of the client user interface and the client agent user interface, respectively, based on at least one of (i) information in the client profile record, and (ii) an update of information to the client profile record.
Polston further teaches a messaging server in the form of a social network platform server which may retrieve and store messaging content for the users and display them on the user interfaces based on information stored in the database regarding the user. (Polston: paragraphs [0023, 25, 37-42], Figs. 1-2, 3, 7) Bui, as outlined above, teaches that the social networking server 131 may be in communication with the system application server 110 and therefore teaches the transmission of information from the social networking server to the system session server to the user interfaces. (Bui: paragraph [0028], Fig. 1A) The motivation to combine Bui persists.
As per claim 3, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the stored message record further includes assigned section information for the message content configured to direct the message content to be displayed at the assigned section corresponding to the assigned section information.
Polston teaches a client user interface with various display sections which may allow for assignment of information. (Polston: paragraph [0043-48], Fig. 3) Polston teaches an agent user interface with various display sections which may allow for assignment of information. (Polston: paragraph [56-64], Fig. 7)
As per claim 4, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the information comprises at least one of personal client information and client property information.
Polston teaches that the content displayed may comprise client property information 322 and personal information 710. (Polston: paragraphs [0043-48, 56-64],Figs. 3, 7)
As per claim 5, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the update of information to the client profile record comprises progression step information from a predetermined plurality of progressive real estate transaction steps.
Polston teaches that a user may search for properties, share listings, and receive indications of favorite properties in a progressive step which results in the updating of the users profile with this information. (Polston: paragraphs [0065-66], Fig. 9)
As per claim 7, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the message displayed at the predetermined section of the plurality of display sections is based on display section information in the stored message.
Polston teaches a client user interface with various display sections which may allow for assignment of information. (Polston: paragraph [0043-48], Fig. 3) Polston teaches an agent user interface with various display sections which may allow for assignment of information. (Polston: paragraph [56-64], Fig. 7) In teaching that the information is retrieved from a database and displayed into sections which correspond to that type of information received, Polston teaches that the information is displayed in a corresponding section based on display section information in the received information message. (Polston: paragraphs [0019-20, 43-49, 56-65])
As per claim 8, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of initiating a client agent matching process.
Bui further teaches that the system may display on a user interface, an indication of agents which have been matched with a prospective buyer of a property. (Bui: paragraphs [0033, 63], Fig. 1B) Bui teaches combining these elements with the teachings of Polston for the benefit of providing the customer with immediate feedback and reduces the amount of time spent communicating back and forth to set up a meeting or viewing of a potential real estate asset. (Bui: paragraph [0064]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these elements of Bui with the teachings of Polston to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 9, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of a client agent proposed match with the client.
Bui further teaches that the system may display on a user interface, an indication of agents which have been matched with a prospective buyer of a property. (Bui: paragraphs [0033, 63], Fig. 1B) Bui teaches combining these elements with the teachings of Polston for the benefit of providing the customer with immediate feedback and reduces the amount of time spent communicating back and forth to set up a meeting or viewing of a potential real estate asset. (Bui: paragraph [0064]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these elements of Bui with the teachings of Polston to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 10, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a confirmation of a client agent match with the client.
Bui further teaches that the system may display on a user interface, an indication of agents which have been matched with a prospective buyer of a property. (Bui: paragraphs [0033, 63], Fig. 1B) Bui further teaches a confirmation screen displayed to the user confirming the match. (Bui: paragraph [0028], Fig. 2) Bui teaches combining these elements with the teachings of Polston for the benefit of providing the customer with immediate feedback and reduces the amount of time spent communicating back and forth to set up a meeting or viewing of a potential real estate asset. (Bui: paragraph [0064]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these elements of Bui with the teachings of Polston to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 18, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A method for delivering message content to a client and a client agent both engaged in a real estate transaction of the client, the method comprising:
Polston teaches a system and method for integrating real estate transaction messaging into a dedicated platform. (Polston: abstract)
As per claims 20-22 and 24, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claims 3-5 and 7, and claims 20-22 and 24 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 3-5 and 7, respectively, as outlined above.
As per claim 27, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A system for delivering message content to a client and a client agent both engaged in a real estate transaction of the client, the method comprising:
Polston teaches a system and method for integrating real estate transaction messaging into a dedicated platform. (Polston: abstract)
As per claims 29-31 and 33, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claims 3-5 and 7, and claims 29-31 and 33 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 3-5 and 7, respectively, as outlined above.
Claims 2, 11-17, 19, 25-26, 28, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien and further in view of Marshall et al. (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20170193616; hereinafter "Marshall").
As per claim 2, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the plurality of display sections further comprise a first assignable section configured to display subsequent action information about the client real estate transaction, a second assignable section configured to display information about one of a client action recommendation or a client service offering regarding the client real estate transaction, and a third assignable section configured to display personalized client reports.
Polston teaches a client user interface with various display sections which may allow for assignment of information. (Polston: paragraph [0043-48], Fig. 3) Polston teaches an agent user interface with various display sections which may allow for assignment of information. (Polston: paragraph [56-64], Fig. 7)
Marshall, however, teaches that information displayed via a social networking system may comprise notifications regarding a property, wherein the notification may comprise a ranking of agents for a client (a personalized report), subsequent action information in the form of indicating that a user has requested a second showing, or client offers. (Marshall: paragraphs [0034, 56-60, 83-85] Fig. 2C, 2E) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, or by Marshall. Displaying the content taught by Marshall does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Marshall with the teachings of Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 11, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of one of a submitted offer or a received offer.
Marshall, however, teaches that information displayed via a social networking system may comprise notifications regarding a property, wherein the notification may comprise an indication of a received offer on a property. (Marshall: paragraphs [0034, 56-60]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, or by Marshall. Displaying the content taught by Marshall does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Marshall with the teachings of Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 12, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of one of a submitted backup offer or a received backup offer.
Marshall, however, teaches that information displayed via a social networking system may comprise notifications regarding a property, wherein the notification may comprise an indication of a received offer on a property, or a backup offer on a property. (Marshall: paragraphs [0029, 34, 56-60, 89]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, or by Marshall. Displaying the content taught by Marshall does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Marshall with the teachings of Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 13, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of one of a rejected offer or an offer rejection.
Marshall, however, teaches that information displayed via a social networking system may comprise notifications regarding a property, wherein the notification may comprise an indication of a received offer on a property, or a counter offer (a rejection and counter). (Marshall: paragraphs [0034, 56-60]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, or by Marshall. Displaying the content taught by Marshall does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Marshall with the teachings of Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 14, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of one of a submitted counteroffer or a received counteroffer.
Marshall, however, teaches that information displayed via a social networking system may comprise notifications regarding a property, wherein the notification may comprise an indication of a received offer on a property or a counter offer. (Marshall: paragraphs [0034, 56-60]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, or by Marshall. Displaying the content taught by Marshall does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Marshall with the teachings of Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 15, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a notice of one of an accepted offer or an offer acceptance.
Marshall, however, teaches that information displayed via a social networking system may comprise notifications regarding a property, wherein the notification may comprise an indication of a received offer on a property or an acceptance of an offer. (Marshall: paragraphs [0034, 56-60]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, or by Marshall. Displaying the content taught by Marshall does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Marshall with the teachings of Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 16, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the transmitted message content comprises a solicitation for additional services.
Marshall, however, teaches that information displayed via a social networking system may comprise notifications regarding a property, wherein the notification may comprise a request for a 2nd showing. (Marshall: paragraphs [0034, 56-60], Fig. 2C) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, or by Marshall. Displaying the content taught by Marshall does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Marshall with the teachings of Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 17, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien further in view of Marshall teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as outlined above, and further teaches:
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 information including progression step information from a predetermined plurality of progressive real estate transaction steps.
Polston teaches the updating of the user profile as the user performs one or more steps in the process of searching for a property. (Polston: paragraphs [0065-66], Fig. 9) Marshall, as outlined above, teaches that information displayed via a social networking system may comprise notifications regarding a property, wherein the notification may comprise a request for a 2nd showing, wherein information about the activities of the buyer may be stored in their profile. (Marshall: paragraphs [0022-23, 26, 34, 56-60], Fig. 2C) The motivation to combine Marshall persists.
As per claims 19 and 25-26, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien and further in view of Marshall teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claims 2 and 16-17, and claims 19 and 25-26 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2 and 16-17, respectively, as outlined above.
As per claims 28 and 34-35, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien and further in view of Marshall teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claims 2 and 16-17, and claims 28 and 34-35 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2 and 16-17, respectively, as outlined above.
Claims 6, 23, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien and further in view of Milman et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20080097767; hereinafter "Milman").
As per claim 6, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the update of information to the client profile record is initiated by the client agent on the client agent user interface regarding the progressive step information from the predetermined plurality of progressive real estate transaction steps.
Polston teaches that a user may search for properties, share listings, and receive indications of favorite properties in a progressive step which results in the updating of the users profile with this information. (Polston: paragraphs [0065-66], Fig. 9) Polston, however, does not appear to teach that this is performed by the agent using the agent interface, but rather by the buyer themselves.
Milman, however, teaches that an agent may use an agent interface to update a buyer's profile with their preferred listings and properties. (Milman: paragraph [0076-78], Fig. 2A) Milman teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien for the benefit of saving many hours of work by real estate agents by automating property information functions and by offering easily-viewable, summary information helpful to real estate agents. (Milman: paragraph [0036]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Milman with the teachings of Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claims 23 and 32, Polston in view of Bui further in view of Chien and further in view of Milman teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 6, and claims 23 and 32 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 6, respectively, as outlined above.
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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
