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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made this application is a CIP of application number 18/171,009 filed on 02/17/2023 (U.S. Patent No. 12,217,321).
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
In the instant case, Claims 1-20 are directed to system and method for analyzing one or more real estate deals or investments and performing optical character recognition (OCR);. The claims 1-20 are analyzed to see if claims are statutory category of invention, recites judicial exception and the claims are further analyzed to see if the claims are integrated into practical application if the judicial exception is recited and the claims provides an inventive as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility as set forth below:
Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 106.03.
Claims 1 and 19 are directed to system comprising memory and one or more processors for analyzing one or more real estate deals or investments. The claimed system is therefore directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (a combination of device) (Step 1: YES).
Claim 19 is directed to a process i.e., a series of method steps or acts, of analyzing one or more real estate deals or investments, which is a statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. There are no nature- based product limitations in this claim, and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are similar and they are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.. The claim recite plurality of steps of “receiving a authentication request, creating a first deal profile for a first property and allowing upload of documents comprising first data.”
The limitations of “receiving a authentication request, creating a first deal profile for a first property and allowing upload of documents” covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and thus fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. For example, but for the “one or more processors” language, “receiving a authentication request, creating a first deal profile and allowing upload of documents” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the recited steps. The recitation of a processor in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the above limitations of recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. 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 (YES).
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract idea as described in Prong 1, the claim recites the additional elements of the computing device performing “performing processing on the one or more documents by performing optical character recognition (OCR) and receiving the data is associated with the first property.”
An evaluation of whether limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation (a) is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, this additional element represents mere performing optical character recognition (OCR) of documents which that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception. The processor is also an additional element which is configured to carry out limitations for that is used in steps described in Prong 1. But the processor is recited so generically without any details that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a controller. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computer does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive concept? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, there are two additional elements.
The first is the processor, which is configured to perform all the limitations recited. As explained previously, the computing device is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The second additional element is limitation of “performing processing on the one or more documents by performing optical character recognition (OCR) and receiving the data is associated with the first property” which as explained previously is extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant.
Under the 2019 PEG, however, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. 2019 PEG Section III(B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the recitation of a processor for performing processing on the one or more documents by performing optical character recognition (OCR) and receiving the data is associated with the first property, recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation (a) does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Further, Applicant specifically described invention is to implement performing processing on the one or more documents by performing optical character recognition (OCR) and receiving the data is associated with the first property (see Fig. 3,Specification: page 12-14]) implemented using examples of existing computer networking equipment, hardware, and software that are used to construct the claimed invention without apparent modification (see Fig. 1: page 9). Therefore, the additional element only recite generic components and steps are well-understood routine and conventional. Claims as recited do not provide any particular asserted inventive technology for performing those functions and therefore the claims are held patent ineligible (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims is not patent eligible. (NO).
Dependent Claims:
Examiner further reviewed the dependent claims 1-17 that could be added to the independent claims to make patent eligible. The dependent claims as recited pertains to additional steps which further describes “determining and displaying values, processing information including determining a first region, identifying a first dataset stored in datastore,: querying datastore to identify data associated with the first region” which appears to be a mental process using a generic computer component that been found to be an abstract idea as described above. These dependent claims do not provide additional elements significantly more than the purported abstract idea that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims as recited would not make the independent claim significantly more by incorporating them into the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible (NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al., U.S. Pub 2020/0258176 (reference A in attached PTO-892) in view of Hall et al., U.S. Pub No. 2019/0026577 (reference B in attached PTO-892).
As per claim 1, Gibson et al. teach a system for analyzing one or more real estate deals or investments, the system comprising:
at least one memory (see Fig. 5, Persistent storage (2111);
one or more processors in communication with the memory (see Fig. 5, Processing Device (2101);
at least one database or data store (see Fig. 5, Database (2180);
the system configured for:
receiving a first authentication request (see Fig. 14: paragraph [0183-0185]);
creating a first deal profile for a first property (see Fig. 5, Master File (2119): Electronic Document (3000), paragraph [0225]; and Fig. 7, paragraph [0234]; where master file or profile created/generated foe electronic document recording plurality information for transaction where transaction includes buy and sale of property);
allowing upload of one or more documents, the one or more documents comprising first data (see Fig. 23A: Document Upload: paragraph [0271, 0289, 0311]; where document is uploaded comprising transaction data for execution);
performing first processing on the one or more documents; receiving the first data, wherein the first data is associated with the first property (see Figs. 6 and 7, paragraph [0226 and 0234]; where electronic document related to real estate property is executed after receiving data input)
Gibson et al. do not teach wherein the first processing comprises performing optical character recognition (OCR).
Hall et al. wherein the first processing comprises performing optical character recognition (OCR) (see abstract).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow wherein the first processing comprises performing optical character recognition (OCR) to Gibson et al. because Hall et al. teach including above features would enable to apply OCR process to a data field to provided coordinate area and extract a value in the data field and verify the accuracy of the extracted field (see paragraph [0025]).
As per claims 2-7, Gibson et al. teach claim 1 as described above.
Gibson et al. do not teach receiving first information; determining at least two values using the first information; delivering, to a client, the at least two values; displaying, using one or more graphical user interfaces (GUIs), the at least two values; wherein first data comprises, at least: one or more historical items; one or more growth parameters or projections; and/or one or more cost items; wherein the first processing comprises performing optical character recognition (OCR); extracting or recognizing one or more values contained in the one or more documents.
Hall et al. teach receiving first information; determining at least two values using the first information; delivering, to a client, the at least two values; displaying, using one or more graphical user interfaces (GUIs), the at least two values (see Fig. 7A, Check (700): Address (702), Routing Number and Accounting Number (718), Payee Name (724): paragraph where check with plurality data/information is received and displayed in a user interface); wherein first data comprises, at least: one or more historical items; one or more growth parameters or projections; and/or one or more cost items (see Fig. 6, Step 602; paragraph [0095]; where cost item include amount of check and historic data may include address of the resource document/ check); wherein the first processing comprises performing optical character recognition (OCR); extracting or recognizing one or more values contained in the one or more documents; and wherein the first processing comprises performing optical character recognition (OCR); extracting or recognizing one or more values contained in the one or more documents (see Fig.6, Step 606 to Step 610: paragraph [0093-0095]; Fig. 7 and 8, Payee Name (806): paragraph [0117-0121]; where OCR process check missing values, correctly entered/ extracted and provide user input if required).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow above feature limitations to Gibson et al. because Hall et al. teach including above features would enable to apply OCR process to a data field to provided coordinate area and extract a value in the data field and verify the accuracy of the extracted field (see paragraph [0025]).
As per claim 8-14, Gibson et al. teach claim 1 as described above.
Gibson et al. do not teach wherein the first information includes location information;
performing a first processing of the first information, wherein the first processing comprises:
determining a first region associated with the first information; identifying a first dataset stored in the at least one database or datastore, wherein the identifying a first dataset stored in the at least one database or datastore comprises: querying the at least one database or datastore to identify data associated with the first region; the region is at least partially determined based on one or more government-assigned regions; the location information comprises information associated with a location within the one or more government-assigned regions; the region is at least partially determined based on one or more zip codes; the location information comprises information associated with a location within the one or more zip codes.
Hall et al. teach wherein the first information includes location information;
performing a first processing of the first information (see Fig. 7, Address (702): paragraph [0112]), wherein the first processing comprises: determining a first region associated with the first information; identifying a first dataset stored in the at least one database or datastore, wherein the identifying a first dataset stored in the at least one database or datastore comprises: querying the at least one database or datastore to identify data associated with the first region; the region is at least partially determined based on one or more government-assigned regions; the location information comprises information associated with a location within the one or more government-assigned regions; the region is at least partially determined based on one or more zip codes; the location information comprises information associated with a location within the one or more zip codes (see Fig. 8, Missing/unidentified Data (804): paragraph 0119-0121]; where missing/unidentified/incorrect data is identified by OCR process verify and correct data for an address in check include state, city and Zip Code for the corrected address).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow above feature limitations to Gibson et al. because Hall et al. teach including above features would enable to apply OCR process to a data field to provided coordinate area and extract a value in the data field and verify the accuracy of the extracted field (see paragraph [0025]).
As per claims 15-18, Gibson et al. teach claim 2 as described above.
Gibson et al. do not teach first data comprises, at least: one or more historical items;
one or more growth parameters or projections; and/or one or more cost items; determining or calculating a projected value; displaying using the one or more graphical user interfaces (GUIs) a projection model; the projection model is based, at least in part, on the first dataset.
Hall et al. teach first data comprises, at least: one or more historical items;
one or more growth parameters or projections; and/or one or more cost items; determining or calculating a projected value; displaying using the one or more graphical user interfaces (GUIs) a projection model; the projection model is based, at least in part, on the first dataset (see Fig. 6: paragraph [0095]; Fig. 8, Missing Data (804): paragraph [0119-0121]; where missing value projected or estimated based on historical data of resource document based on original OCR identifying one or more possible values).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow above feature limitations to Gibson et al. because Hall et al. teach including above features would enable to apply OCR process to a data field to provided coordinate area and extract a value in the data field and verify the accuracy of the extracted field (see paragraph [0025]).
As per claim 19, Gibson et al. teach a system for analyzing one or more real estate deals or investments, the system comprising:
at least one memory; one or more processors in communication with the memory;
at least one database or data store; the system configured for: receiving a first authentication request; creating a first deal profile for a first property; allowing upload of one or more documents, the one or more documents comprising first information; performing first processing on the one or more documents, wherein the first processing comprises performing optical character recognition (OCR); receiving the first information, wherein the first information is associated with the first property (see claim 1 above),
determining at least two values using the first information; displaying, using the one or more graphical user interfaces (GUIs), the at least two values; wherein first information comprises, at least: one or more historical items; one or more growth parameters or projections; and/or one or more cost items; location information (see claims 2-7 above); and
performing a first processing of the first information, wherein the first processing comprises: determining a first region associated with the first information; identifying a first dataset stored in the at least one database or datastore, wherein the identifying a first dataset stored in the at least one database or datastore comprises: querying the at least one database or datastore to identify data associated with the first region (see claims 8-10 above).
As per claim 20, Gibson et al. teach a method for analyzing one or more real estate deals or investments, the method comprising steps as described in the claim 1 as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosures. The following are pertinent to current invention, though not relied upon:
BAIC (U.S. Pub No. 2016/0247245) teaches multi-user transactions platform for concluding documents using a mobile device.
Smith (U. S. Pub No. 2020/0387544) teaches automated platform for data management including real-estate transactions.
Lawson et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0313917) teach capturing and processing payment coupons information..
Burns (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0266683) teaches automated real estate information and offers.
O’Brien (U.S. Patent No. 10,318,756) teaches secure document management.
Patel et al. (IN 202121062020 A) teach digital system integrating real estate services using artificial intelligence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1374. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Respectfully submitted,
/BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 01/19/2026