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 .
Contents of this Office Action:
35 U.S.C. 101 rejections – NOTE: 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.
Prior Art rejections – NOTE that the Kerzner reference has a priority date of 3/12/2015, which predates the current application
Prior Art relevant but not used in rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-20 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; 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; 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, claims 2, 11-16, and 18 simply recites 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herder US20120323798, hereinafter “Herder”.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Herder discloses a system comprising a display including a graphical user interface; one or more processors; one or more memory storage devices storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (Abstract discloses modeling comparable properties and rendering map images with automatic valuation of properties bordering specified geographic features. A valuation model identifies and accounts for the proximity of properties to geographic features. For example, estimating property value includes accessing property data corresponding to a geographic area and performing a regression based upon the property data. The regression models the relationship between price and explanatory variables, with the explanatory variables including proximity to geographic features. Proximity may be a categorical variable wherein properties bordering the geographic feature are determined to possess the proximity characteristic. P113 discloses a processor and Figs 7A-7D disclose a working example of the display), cause the system to:
establish a user profile including a plurality of profile preferences indicating one or more predetermined threshold values (P121 discloses predetermined user settings which include weights, which are threshold values);
store the one or more predetermined threshold values at the one or more memory storage devices (As discussed above, P113 discloses that the model is stored on a computer);
provide access to the user profile via the graphical user interface (Figs. 7A-7D disclose a user interacting with the GUI);
send, at least partly based on the one or more predetermined threshold values and using one or more wireless network connections, a first request to a first data source for a first property metric related to a property (P181 discloses property data type sourced from various sources like an MLS);
receive, from the first data source and responsive to the first request, the first property metric (See limitation above and Figs. 7A-7D);
send, using the one or more wireless network connections, a second request to a second 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 (As above, P181 discloses a plurality of data sources MLS, tax, etc.);
receive, from the second data source and responsive to the second request, the second property metric (P181 and Figs. 7A-7D disclose the data displayed on the GUI);
calculate a predicted property value based on at least the first property metric and the second property metric (P62-65 show the specific property valuations); and
present, at the display, the predicted property value alongside a comparable property and sold price corresponding to the comparable property (P62-65 show values of comparable properties and P60 discloses the sale price of each comp).
Regarding claim 2, Herder discloses wherein the user profile includes at least one of a description of the one or more properties, a hyperlink to a website that mentions the property, or a hyperlink to a file relevant to the property (P79 discloses that the whole system is run through a web browser, and Figs. 7A-7D disclose all the property metrics and user data).
Regarding claims 11-16 and 18, these limitations amount to mere data. They do not change the structure of the system. As such, they are considered disclosed by Heder because they amount to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05 for more information.
Regarding claims 17, Herder discloses determine an absent property metric missing from a subset of properties associated with the user profile, and sending the second request is response to determining the absent property metric (P81 shows that data is included in various external resources and that data is specific to the source. For example, tax data is found in a tax database, so to get the tax information into the system it must first determine that it is missing, the query the tax source).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herder in view of Kerzner US9494936B2, hereinafter “Kerzner.”
Regarding claim 3, Herder does not disclose:
sending the first request for the first property metric causes a dispatch of a drone resulting in a dispatched drone; and
the first property metric is collected by the dispatched drone.
However, Kerzer, which is directed towards monitoring, security, and surveillance of a property, does disclose:
sending the first request for the first property metric causes a dispatch of a drone resulting in a dispatched drone (Col. 1, lines 45-60 disclose one or more flying drone that are configured to respond to commands from a security system to fly about a property both within the interior and around the exterior); and
the first property metric is collected by the dispatched drone (Col. 1, lines 45-60 disclose that the drones monitor for metrics like movement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herder with the drone features of Kerzer to allow for bespoke and immediate collection of data. That is, Herder already discloses sending a first request for a first property metric and collecting this metric. Kerzer then takes that same functionality – i.e. responding to a request, but that response dispatches a drone to go collect metric data. It would be obvious to include these features so that the drone can collect the features of Herder directly, to avoid having to query databases that may or may not have complete data.
Regarding claim 4, Kerzer discloses:
receive video data from the dispatched drone (Col. 6, lines 45-50 disclose streaming a live video feed);
display the video data in real-time at the graphical user interface (See limitation above).
Regarding claim 5, Kerzer discloses that the display is part of a wearable headset (Col. 5, line 19 discloses a headset).
Regarding claim 6, Herder discloses wherein the display is part of a mobile device and the system further comprises a mobile device application stored on the mobile device (P79 discloses an application that is installed on the user device).
Regarding claim 7, please see rejection to claim 2 for web browser
Regarding claim 8, Kerzer Col. 26, lines 30-35 disclose that a central station operator located remotely can control navigation
Regarding claims 9-10, Kerzer, Col. 14, lines 1-20 disclose that the module may be connected to one or more electronic locks at the property and may be configured to control operation of the one or more electronic locks.
Relevant Prior Art
US8848984B1 which is directed to systems and methods for ranking geographic features in a geographic information system are provided. In particular, geographic features can be assigned ranking scores based on characteristics of viewsheds associated with the geographic features. In particular, characteristics of a viewshed associated with a geographic feature can be analyzed to assess the visibility of the geographic feature. A ranking score can be assigned to the geographic feature based on the characteristics of the viewshed. The ranking score can be used prioritize information in a geographic information system.
Conclusion
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