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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 12, applicant recites “receive identifying information regarding a customer via the user interface display,” where, given that the feature was previously introduced as a “user interface,” the limitation should read “receive identifying information regarding a customer via the user interface
The dependent claims are objected to by virtue of their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claims 1 and 12 are directed to a system, claim 15 to a method. Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention and pass Step 1. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or are significantly more.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea recited in claim 1 is:
transmit a product inventory for display;
receive a product selection;
receive identifying information of a customer;
verify the identity of the customer based on the received identifying information;
create an RTO agreement based on the product selection and the identifying information;
transmit the RTO agreement for display; and
receive an execution of the RTO agreement by the customer.
The abstract idea recited in claim 12 is:
receive identifying information regarding a customer;
transmit the identifying information;
display an indication of an identification of the customer based on the transmitted identifying information;
display a product inventory received;
receive a product selection;
transmit the product selection;
display an RTO agreement received based on the product selection and the identifying information;
receive an execution of the RTO agreement;
transmit the executed RTO agreement;
receive product delivery instructions; and
transmit the delivery instructions.
The abstract idea recited in claim 15 is:
determining a geographical location;
displaying a product inventory based on the determined geographical location;
receiving a product selection;
receiving identifying information regarding a customer;
verifying the identity of the customer based on the received identifying information;
creating an RTO agreement based on the product selection and the identifying information;
displaying the RTO agreement;
receiving an execution of the RTO agreement;
receiving product delivery information; and
delivering the product based on the received product delivery information.
The limitations above constitute a process that encompasses following rules or instructions, given that they are directed to the steps a party takes to facilitate execution of an agreement and/or delivery of a product. See para. [0003] to [0005] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations of social activities, teaching, following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the limitations above constitute a process that encompasses commercial activity, given that given that they are directed to the steps a party takes to facilitate execution of an agreement (i.e. contract) and/or delivery of a product (i.e. sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations). See para. [0003] to [0005] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The additional elements of the claims include:
Claim 1: a retail computer including a processor and a memory communicably connected with and readable by the processor, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to; communicate with a customer computer; customer computer.
Claim 12: a customer computer including a processor and a memory communicably connected with and readable by the processor, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to; communicate with a retail computer associated with an RTO store; retail computer; display a user interface; user interface; user interface display.
Claim 15: communicating with a remote customer computer; customer computer.
These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are simply being used applied to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s own specification describes a generic computing system and elements in para. [0034] to [0045], for example. The elements in combination are nothing more than a generic computing system.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, it is concluded that the additional claim elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Examiner proceeds by carrying over the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2, i.e. the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, where these generic computing elements are simply being used to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements in combination are nothing more than a generic computing system. This is not significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, it is concluded that the additional claim elements, alone and in combination, do not amount to significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Regarding claims 2-11, 13-14, and 16-20, there are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. Applicant is simply narrowing the abstract idea with additional steps and/or information. Therefore, the same conclusions apply, i.e. the recited abstract idea is not integrated into practical application, and the additional elements are not significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kabello et al. (US 20160314522).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Kabello discloses: A rent-to-own (RTO) transaction system {this invention relates to a system and computer-implemented methods for creating rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements; para. [0001]}, comprising:
a retail computer including a processor and a memory communicably connected with and readable by the processor, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to {corresponding structure found in para. [0005], [0006]}:
communicate with a customer computer {FIG. 4 shows an example of a lease-purchase display screen 400 for initiation of a lease-purchase transaction in accordance with some embodiments of the invention; in some embodiments, the initiation display screen 400 can include instructions to the customer detailing what will be required during the application process (shown as 425); para. [0070]};
transmit a product inventory for display on the customer computer {for example, FIG. 11 illustrates an example of a product selection display screen 1100 of the lease-purchase system and method in accordance with some embodiments of the invention; para. [0079]};
receive a product selection via the customer computer {in some embodiments, the icons representing bundles or groups of articles can include living room set, office set, dining room set, bedroom set, and/or youth bedroom set (shown as icons 1125); in some embodiments, the customer can select any one or more of these icons to proceed with the transaction; para. [0079]};
receive identifying information of a customer via the customer computer {in some embodiments, the lease-purchase system and method can also require the customer provide his or her Social Security number, driver's license number, birth date, mobile phone number, photo (taken on device), source of income/employer information, and take-home income (e.g., monthly income after tax); para. [0070]};
verify the identity of the customer based on the received identifying information {for example, in some embodiments, the lease-purchase system and method can be coupled to one or more external computer systems, such as third party servers that provide data verification services and calculation capabilities for the lease-purchase system and method; para. [0099]; also see para. [0121], [0122]};
create an RTO agreement based on the product selection and the identifying information {as seen in Figs. 24-25; para. [0095], [0096]};
transmit the RTO agreement for display on the customer computer {as seen in Fig. 25; para. [0096]}; and
receive an execution of the RTO agreement by the customer via the customer computer {if the customer finds the lease-purchase agreement acceptable, the customer can accept the agreement by tapping the “agree” icon (2540); if the customer does not find the lease-purchase agreement acceptable, the customer can decline the agreement by tapping the “decline” icon (2545); para. [0096]}.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Kabello further discloses: wherein verifying the identity of the customer includes comparing the received identifying information to predetermined verification information {para. [0099], [0121], [0122]}.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Kabello further discloses: wherein the wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor cause the retail computer to perform an identity risk assessment based on the identifying information {a quick reference score quantifying the fraud risk identified by the fraud flag can be assigned by TransUnion, and a high level evaluation can be processed by the lease-purchase system and method at this point; para. [0121]; also see para. [0130]}.
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Kabello further discloses: wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine a location of the customer computer {in some embodiments, locations can be mapped using a third-party mapping service (e.g., through a Google Maps™ with an application programming interface); para. [0143]}.
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Kabello further discloses: wherein determining the location of the customer computer includes receiving a location indication via the customer computer {in some embodiments, the lease-purchase system and method can require an email address or physical address of the customer; para. [0070]}.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Kabello further discloses: wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to receive product delivery instructions via the customer computer {in some embodiments of the invention, the lease-purchase system and method can prompt the customer for the location and/or price of delivery (if applicable); para. [0076]}.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Kabello further discloses: wherein verifying the identity of the customer includes determining if the customer has an account based on the received identifying information {the lease-purchase system and method can then make a call to Telecheck to validate bank account information, and verify the reference check; para. [0121]}.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Kabello discloses: A rent-to-own (RTO) transaction system {this invention relates to a system and computer-implemented methods for creating rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements; para. [0001]}, comprising:
a customer computer including a processor and a memory communicably connected with and readable by the processor, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to {corresponding structure found in para. [0005], [0006]}:
communicate with a retail computer associated with an RTO store {FIG. 4 shows an example of a lease-purchase display screen 400 for initiation of a lease-purchase transaction in accordance with some embodiments of the invention; in some embodiments, the initiation display screen 400 can include instructions to the customer detailing what will be required during the application process (shown as 425); para. [0070]};
display a user interface {para. [0005], [0006]};
receive identifying information regarding a customer via the user interface display {in some embodiments, the lease-purchase system and method can also require the customer provide his or her Social Security number, driver's license number, birth date, mobile phone number, photo (taken on device), source of income/employer information, and take-home income (e.g., monthly income after tax); para. [0070]};
transmit the identifying information to the retail computer {para. [0099], [0121], [0122]};
display on the user interface an indication of an identification of the customer from the retail computer based on the transmitted identifying information {para. [0099], [0121], [0122]};
display on the user interface a product inventory received from the retail computer {for example, FIG. 11 illustrates an example of a product selection display screen 1100 of the lease-purchase system and method in accordance with some embodiments of the invention; para. [0079]};
receive a product selection via the user interface {in some embodiments, the icons representing bundles or groups of articles can include living room set, office set, dining room set, bedroom set, and/or youth bedroom set (shown as icons 1125); in some embodiments, the customer can select any one or more of these icons to proceed with the transaction; para. [0079]};
transmit the product selection to the retail computer {para. [0079]};
display on the user interface an RTO agreement received from the retail computer based on the product selection and the identifying information {as seen in Figs. 24-25; para. [0095], [0096]};
receive an execution of the RTO agreement via the user interface {if the customer finds the lease-purchase agreement acceptable, the customer can accept the agreement by tapping the “agree” icon (2540); if the customer does not find the lease-purchase agreement acceptable, the customer can decline the agreement by tapping the “decline” icon (2545); para. [0096]};
transmit the executed RTO agreement to the retail computer {para. [0096]};
receive product delivery instructions via the user interface {in some embodiments of the invention, the lease-purchase system and method can prompt the customer for the location and/or price of delivery (if applicable); para. [0076]}; and
transmit the delivery instructions to the retail computer {para. [0076]}.
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Kabello further discloses: wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to transmit location information of the customer computer to the retail computer {in some embodiments, locations can be mapped using a third-party mapping service (e.g., through a Google Maps™ with an application programming interface); para. [0143]}.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Kabello further discloses: wherein the memory contains instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to receive account log in information via the user interface {this process can involve selecting a username and providing a password and security answer; once the customer is enrolled in ePay, they can view their Autopay details by logging into the lease-purchase system and method, and clicking the ePay button (icon); para. [0098]}.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 5-7, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabello in view of Bhanote et al. (US 20180260884).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Kabello doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Bhanote, in a similar field of endeavor directed to location-based product merchandising, teaches: wherein displaying the product inventory includes displaying the product inventory associated with the determined location of the customer computer {the method proceeds with the step of determining, using the location of the user device, a geobased dataset of goods or services currently available from at least one of the nearest ones of the physical stores to the location of the user device or from a selected one of the physical stores selected on the user device; para. [0005]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kabello to include the features of Bhanote. Given that Kabello is directed to rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Bhanote, in order to facilitate store-centric online experiences, and in-store experiences based on local digital demand {para. [0003] of Bhanote}.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Bhanote further teaches: wherein displaying the product inventory includes displaying the product inventory associated with a retail store located in a region including the determined location of the customer computer {as illustrated in FIG. 13C, the method 200 may further include using, by the smart type rules engine 38, sales or inventory information regarding the goods or services currently available at the nearest ones of the physical stores to the location of the user device 34 or sales or inventory data 29 regarding the goods or services currently available at the selected one of the physical stores in generating the smart-type data 39 at step 260; para. [0059]}. (The motivation and rationale to incorporate the additional features of Bhanote is the same as set forth above.)
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Bhanote further teaches: wherein displaying the product inventory includes displaying special order products associated with the determined location of the customer computer {for example, the system 10 may include in the promoted goods or services 42, products that are top sellers, or ones that are recently abnormally popular (i.e. products that are trendy); para. [0059]}. (The motivation and rationale to incorporate the additional features of Bhanote is the same as set forth above.)
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Kabello discloses: A rent-to-own (RTO) transaction method {this invention relates to a system and computer-implemented methods for creating rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements; para. [0001]}, comprising:
communicating with a remote customer computer {FIG. 4 shows an example of a lease-purchase display screen 400 for initiation of a lease-purchase transaction in accordance with some embodiments of the invention; in some embodiments, the initiation display screen 400 can include instructions to the customer detailing what will be required during the application process (shown as 425); para. [0070]};
determining a geographical location of the customer computer {in some embodiments, locations can be mapped using a third-party mapping service (e.g., through a Google Maps™ with an application programming interface); para. [0143]};
receiving a product selection via the customer computer {in some embodiments, the icons representing bundles or groups of articles can include living room set, office set, dining room set, bedroom set, and/or youth bedroom set (shown as icons 1125); in some embodiments, the customer can select any one or more of these icons to proceed with the transaction; para. [0079]};
receiving identifying information regarding a customer via the customer computer {in some embodiments, the lease-purchase system and method can also require the customer provide his or her Social Security number, driver's license number, birth date, mobile phone number, photo (taken on device), source of income/employer information, and take-home income (e.g., monthly income after tax); para. [0070]};
verifying the identity of the customer based on the received identifying information {for example, in some embodiments, the lease-purchase system and method can be coupled to one or more external computer systems, such as third party servers that provide data verification services and calculation capabilities for the lease-purchase system and method; para. [0099]; also see para. [0121], [0122]};
creating an RTO agreement based on the product selection and the identifying information {as seen in Figs. 24-25; para. [0095], [0096]};
displaying the RTO agreement on the customer computer {as seen in Fig. 25; para. [0096]};
receiving an execution of the RTO agreement via the customer computer {if the customer finds the lease-purchase agreement acceptable, the customer can accept the agreement by tapping the “agree” icon (2540); if the customer does not find the lease-purchase agreement acceptable, the customer can decline the agreement by tapping the “decline” icon (2545); para. [0096]};
receiving product delivery information via the customer computer {in some embodiments of the invention, the lease-purchase system and method can prompt the customer for the location and/or price of delivery (if applicable); para. [0076]}; and
delivering the product based on the received product delivery information {in some embodiments, after the delivery date passes, the lease-purchase system and method can prompt contact with the user via telephone and confirm that the delivery has been completed; para. [0094]}.
Kabello doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Bhanote, in a similar field of endeavor directed to location-based product merchandising, teaches: displaying a product inventory on the customer computer based on the determined geographical location {the method proceeds with the step of determining, using the location of the user device, a geobased dataset of goods or services currently available from at least one of the nearest ones of the physical stores to the location of the user device or from a selected one of the physical stores selected on the user device; para. [0005]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kabello to include the features of Bhanote. Given that Kabello is directed to rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Bhanote, in order to facilitate store-centric online experiences, and in-store experiences based on local digital demand {para. [0003] of Bhanote}.
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Kabello further discloses: performing a risk assessment based on the identifying information {a quick reference score quantifying the fraud risk identified by the fraud flag can be assigned by TransUnion, and a high level evaluation can be processed by the lease-purchase system and method at this point; para. [0121]; also see para. [0130]}.
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, Bhanote further teaches: displaying the product inventory on the customer computer includes displaying the product inventory associated with a retail store located in a region including the determined location of the customer computer {as illustrated in FIG. 13C, the method 200 may further include using, by the smart type rules engine 38, sales or inventory information regarding the goods or services currently available at the nearest ones of the physical stores to the location of the user device 34 or sales or inventory data 29 regarding the goods or services currently available at the selected one of the physical stores in generating the smart-type data 39 at step 260; para. [0059]}. (The motivation and rationale to incorporate the additional features of Bhanote is the same as set forth above.)
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, Kabello further discloses: receiving account log in information via the customer computer {this process can involve selecting a username and providing a password and security answer; once the customer is enrolled in ePay, they can view their Autopay details by logging into the lease-purchase system and method, and clicking the ePay button (icon); para. [0098]}.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabello in view of Roseman et al. (US 20030200156).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Kabello doesn’t explicitly disclose, however, Roseman, in a similar field of endeavor directed to facilitating user-to-user sales, teaches: wherein displaying the product inventory includes displaying new products and used products {the marketplace listings may be for used or preowned products, retail or other new products, and/or other types of products such as collectible; para. [0054]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kabello to include the features of Roseman. Given that Kabello is directed to rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Roseman, in order to facilitate efficiently creating and locating marketplace listings of products {para. [0009] of Roseman}.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kabello and Bhanote, further in view of Allen et al. (US 20210166322).
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, Kabello further discloses: wherein displaying the product inventory on the customer computer includes displaying the product inventory {for example, FIG. 11 illustrates an example of a product selection display screen 1100 of the lease-purchase system and method in accordance with some embodiments of the invention; para. [0079]}.
The combination of Kabello and Bhanote doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Allen, which is directed to modifying a product based on customer risk levels and generally pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches: [displaying] based on the risk assessment {the system may include a processor configured to: (1) receive, at or via at least one transceiver over a wireless communication channel, customer-related data; (2) receive current product data derived from the dynamically reconfigurable product, the current product data being stored in a memory unit; (3) generate a customer profile from computer analysis of the customer-related data and the current product data, the customer profile including at least one type of risk; (4) generate an updated dynamically reconfigurable product based, at least in part, upon the customer profile; (5) generate an electronic notification (capable of wireless communication or data transmission over one or more radio links or wireless communication channels) of the updated dynamically reconfigurable product; (6) transmit, at or via the at least one transceiver over the wireless communication channel, the notification to a computing device of the customer; and/or (7) receive, at or via the at least one transceiver over the wireless communication channel, an electronic response to the updated dynamically reconfigurable product from the computing device; para. [0244]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kabello and Bhanote to include the features of Allen. Given that Kabello is directed to rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Allen, in order to incentivize risk-averse or low risk behavior in the form of lower rates that may be dynamically adjusted {para. [0008] of Allen}.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kabello and Bhanote, further in view of Roseman.
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kabello and Bhanote doesn’t explicitly teach, however, Roseman, in a similar field of endeavor directed to facilitating user-to-user sales, teaches: wherein displaying the product inventory includes displaying new products and used products {the marketplace listings may be for used or preowned products, retail or other new products, and/or other types of products such as collectible; para. [0054]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kabello and Bhanote to include the features of Roseman. Given that Kabello is directed to rent-to-own and/or lease-purchase agreements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Roseman, in order to facilitate efficiently creating and locating marketplace listings of products {para. [0009] of Roseman}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“AFR Furniture Rental” (NPL attached), which describes furniture rental for homes.
US 20120130841, which teaches: A computer-implemented system and method for providing qualification searching and bidding for rental properties is disclosed. A potential renter can provide qualification information and desired features of a rental unit to a rental server to determine one or more rental communities for which the potential renter is qualified. The system and method further provide the potential renter to bid for a rental property with a plurality of rental communities.
US 20150199754, which teaches: In some embodiments, a system may include an interface configured to communicate with a device through a network. The system may further include an artificial intelligence engine configured to identify information corresponding to at least one of a potential renter and a first rental property and assess and value the information based on a context from which the information is identified. The artificial intelligence engine may also determine a recommendation corresponding to the renter or the rental property and may provide an interface to the device including the recommendation and a justification for the recommendation. In some embodiments, the system may automatically negotiate on behalf of one of the potential renter and the property owner and may selectively initiate communications between the potential renter and the property owner.
US 20150235333, which teaches: An apparatus to facilitate property rental, purchase, and management includes a user profile module, a property profile module, a notification module, a payment transaction module, and a renter evaluation module. The user profile module stores a user profile that includes biographical information, government issued identification, credit background, rental history, rental rating, and home purchasing preferences. The property profile module monitors a vacant rental property. The notification module schedules and sends alerts of one or more expected events to users. The payment transaction module transfers payments between users. The renter evaluation module determines whether a renter is a qualified potential homeowner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629