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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-15, and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-15, and 19-27 are held to claim an unpatentable abstract idea, and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The limitations of the independent claims (claim 1 will be used a representative example, as claims 19 and 20 recite substantially similar subject matter, just broader) of establish a user profile including a plurality of profile preferences indicating one or more predetermined threshold values; store the one or more predetermined threshold values; provide access to the user profile; send, at least partly based on the one or more predetermined threshold values, a first request to a first data source for a first property metric related to a property; receive, from the first data source and responsive to the first request, the first property metric; maintain a property information database storing values for a plurality of property metric fields associated with the property; store the first property metric in the property information database; identify an absent or unverified property metric in the property information database; determine that the absent or unverified property metric is a high-relevance metric based, at least in part, on the one or more profile preferences or based, at least in part, on a determination by a property valuation software component that including the absent or unverified property metric in a predicted property value reduces a prediction error, reduces a prediction error range, or increases an accuracy of the predicted property value; send a second request to a second data source for a second property metric related to the property, the second data source being a different type of data source than the first data source; receive, from the second data source and responsive to the second request, the second property metric; in response to receiving the second property metric from the second data source: fill an absent property metric value for a property metric field in the property information database, or change a verification status associated with the property metric field in the property information database; calculate a predicted property value based on at least the first property metric and the second property metric; and present the predicted property value alongside a comparable property and a sold price corresponding to the comparable property covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the application of the steps by a generic processor and user interface and wireless connections, nothing is being recited that could not be performed mentally.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the element of a processing device to perform the listed steps. The processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the listed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Turning to the dependent claims, the claims (including the new claims) simply recite data, while claim 17 recites another mental step. Claim 3, however, would overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection because it causes a drone to be dispatched based on the results of the mental process. The other dependent claims depend from claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Please see Applicant’s arguments for why the two closest pieces of prior art do not teach the new limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but are deemed unpersuasive. Example 37 is not analogous to the current claims because there is no memory allocation to any icon rearrangement. The present claims, as discussed above, are merely a series of mental steps applied on a generic processor.
As above, the limitations of the independent claims (claim 1 will be used a representative example, as claims 19 and 20 recite substantially similar subject matter, just broader) of establish a user profile including a plurality of profile preferences indicating one or more predetermined threshold values; store the one or more predetermined threshold values; provide access to the user profile; send, at least partly based on the one or more predetermined threshold values, a first request to a first data source for a first property metric related to a property; receive, from the first data source and responsive to the first request, the first property metric; maintain a property information database storing values for a plurality of property metric fields associated with the property; store the first property metric in the property information database; identify an absent or unverified property metric in the property information database; determine that the absent or unverified property metric is a high-relevance metric based, at least in part, on the one or more profile preferences or based, at least in part, on a determination by a property valuation software component that including the absent or unverified property metric in a predicted property value reduces a prediction error, reduces a prediction error range, or increases an accuracy of the predicted property value; send a second request to a second data source for a second property metric related to the property, the second data source being a different type of data source than the first data source; receive, from the second data source and responsive to the second request, the second property metric; in response to receiving the second property metric from the second data source: fill an absent property metric value for a property metric field in the property information database, or change a verification status associated with the property metric field in the property information database; calculate a predicted property value based on at least the first property metric and the second property metric; and present the predicted property value alongside a comparable property and a sold price corresponding to the comparable property covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the application of the steps by a generic processor and user interface and wireless connections, nothing is being recited that could not be performed mentally.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the element of a processing device to perform the listed steps. The processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the listed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 5712721206. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
