DETAILED ACTION
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.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, 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).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a process (i.e. method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves receiving external data, wherein the external data comprises listings data, local costs data, property financing data for the plurality of properties, and credit profile data corresponding to a user, and wherein the local costs data comprises data relating to one or more utilities expenses; determining financing costs data for the plurality of properties based on the listings data and the property financing data, wherein the financing costs data for a respective property corresponds to a value of a periodic financing cost associated with possessing the respective property; determining a plurality of true cost (TC) values for the plurality of properties based on the listings data, the local costs data, and the financing costs data, wherein a respective TC value for the respective property corresponds to a value of a total periodic cost associated with possessing the respective property; generating visualization data based on the plurality of TC values and the listings data, wherein the visualization data is configured for use in generating one or more interfaces for a user device associated with the user; and transmitting the visualization data, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (financial costs data for a plurality of properties; plurality of true costs (TC) values for a plurality of properties; visualization data); commercial or legal interactions (financial costs data for a plurality of properties; plurality of true costs (TC) values for a plurality of properties; visualization data); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receiving, determining, generating, transmitting).
The mere nominal recitation of a “property marketplace platform” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving external data, wherein the external data comprises listings data, local costs data, property financing data for the plurality of properties, and credit profile data corresponding to a user, and wherein the local costs data comprises data relating to one or more utilities expenses; determining financing costs data for the plurality of properties based on the listings data and the property financing data, wherein the financing costs data for a respective property corresponds to a value of a periodic financing cost associated with possessing the respective property; determining a plurality of true cost (TC) values for the plurality of properties based on the listings data, the local costs data, and the financing costs data, wherein a respective TC value for the respective property corresponds to a value of a total periodic cost associated with possessing the respective property; generating visualization data based on the plurality of TC values and the listings data, wherein the visualization data is configured for use in generating one or more interfaces for a user device associated with the user; and transmitting the visualization data.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “property marketplace platform”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for a “property marketplace platform”, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving external data, wherein the external data comprises listings data, local costs data, property financing data for the plurality of properties, and credit profile data corresponding to a user, and wherein the local costs data comprises data relating to one or more utilities expenses; determining financing costs data for the plurality of properties based on the listings data and the property financing data, wherein the financing costs data for a respective property corresponds to a value of a periodic financing cost associated with possessing the respective property; determining a plurality of true cost (TC) values for the plurality of properties based on the listings data, the local costs data, and the financing costs data, wherein a respective TC value for the respective property corresponds to a value of a total periodic cost associated with possessing the respective property; generating visualization data based on the plurality of TC values and the listings data, wherein the visualization data is configured for use in generating one or more interfaces for a user device associated with the user; and transmitting the visualization data. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of a “property marketplace platform”. (b) Although “one or more external data systems for a plurality of properties” are referenced in the claim(s), the claimed invention is not from the perspective of the “one or more external data systems for a plurality of properties”; and the “one or more external data systems for a plurality of properties” do not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The “one or more external data systems for a plurality of properties” merely interact with the entity (i.e., “property marketplace platform”) that performs the positively recited steps or acts. (c) Although a “user device” is referenced in the claim, the claimed invention is not from the perspective of the “user device”; and the “user device” does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The “user device” merely interact with the entity (i.e., “property marketplace platform”) that performs the positively recited steps or acts.
The mere nominal recitation of a “property marketplace platform” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of a “property marketplace platform” performing the positively recited steps or acts. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “receiving” step being from “one or more external data systems for a plurality of properties”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “transmitting” step being to a “user device”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, transmitting”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “generating”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering external data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “property marketplace platform” that performs the step(s) is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). At best the “property marketplace platform” is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 02/18/25 does not provide any indication that a “property marketplace platform” is anything other than a generic off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Callow, US Pub. No. 2010/0145828; Hailey, US Pub. No. 2022/0005134; Medawar, US Pub. No. 2006/0089842; and Gokhale, US Pub. No. 2016/0335695 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, transmitting”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “generating”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, transmitting”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “generating”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim(s), and thus the claim(s) are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 8 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent property marketplace platform claim 9 and independent non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 17 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The component(s) (e.g., “one or more processors”, “a memory”) described in independent property marketplace platform claim 9 and the component(s) (e.g., “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “computer”) recited in independent non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 17, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product(s) (property marketplace platform; non-transitory computer-readable medium) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10 - 16 and 18 - 20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 12 (claims 5 and 13 based on their dependency) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 12 (claims 5 and 13 based on their dependency) recites the limitation " receiving, by the property marketplace platform, filter input data from the communications device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the communications device” in the claim.
NOTE: The specific language used is not required, but intended as an aide to the applicant in overcoming one or more of the objections and/ or rejections noted in this office action. Alternative language may be proposed. Please indicate where support may be found in the specification for any amendments made.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 9 - 11, 14 - 15 and 17 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callow, US Pub. No. 2010/0145828 in view of Hailey, US Pub. No. 2022/0005134.
Re Claims 1, 9 and 17: Callow discloses a method/ property marketplace platform/ non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising:
wherein the external data comprises listings data, property financing data for the plurality of properties, and credit profile data corresponding to a user (Callow, abstract, [0004] [0006] [0007] [0013] [0036] [0037] [0044]);
determining, by the property marketplace platform, financing costs data for the plurality of properties based on the listings data and the property financing data, wherein the financing costs data for a respective property corresponds to a value of a periodic financing cost associated with possessing the respective property (Callow, abstract, [0005] [0007] [0017] [0036] [0039] [0040] [0044] [0045]);
determining, by the property marketplace platform, a plurality of true cost (TC) values for the plurality of properties based on the listings data, the local costs data, and the financing costs data, wherein a respective TC value for the respective property corresponds to a value of a total periodic cost associated with possessing the respective property (Callow, [0015] [0036] [0037] [0040]);
generating, by the property marketplace platform, visualization data based on the plurality of TC values and the listings data, wherein the visualization data is configured for use in generating one or more interfaces for a user device associated with the user (Callow, [0015] [0036] [0037] [0040]); and
transmitting, from the property marketplace platform, the visualization data to the user device (Callow, [0015] [0036] [0037] [0040]).
Although Callow discloses wherein the external data comprises listings data, property financing data for the plurality of properties, and credit profile data corresponding to a user; Callow fails to explicitly disclose receiving, at a property marketplace platform, external data from one or more external data systems for a plurality of properties, wherein the external data further comprises local costs data, and wherein the local costs data comprises data relating to one or more utilities expenses;
Hailey discloses:
receiving, at a property marketplace platform, external data from one or more external data systems for a plurality of properties, wherein the external data further comprises local costs data, and wherein the local costs data comprises data relating to one or more utilities expenses (Hailey, abstract, Figs. 2, 8, [0006] [0007] [0008] [0009] [0010] [0011] [0044] [0048] [0069] [0087]);
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Callow and Hailey are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as they relate to property evaluation. Furthermore, Callow pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of determining true cost values for properties. Furthermore, Hailey is pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of receiving external data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify to modify the teachings of Callow by adopting the teachings of Hailey to provide receiving, at a property marketplace platform, external data from one or more external data systems for a plurality of properties, wherein the external data comprises listings data, local costs data, property financing data for the plurality of properties, and credit profile data corresponding to a user, and wherein the local costs data comprises data relating to one or more utilities expenses;
One would have been motivated to improve accuracy, precision and user convenience.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claims 2, 10 and 18: Callow in view of Hailey discloses the claimed invention supra and Callow further discloses wherein determining, by the property marketplace platform, the financing costs data for the plurality of properties comprises:
receiving user financing data from the user device, wherein the user financing data corresponds to selections by the user for a credit rating, a down payment value, and a loan product (Callow, abstract, [0005] [0007] [0017] [0036] [0039] [0040] [0044] [0045]);
determining the financing costs data corresponding to the user for the plurality of properties based on the user financing data, the listings data, the property financing data, and the credit profile data (Callow, abstract, [0005] [0007] [0017] [0036] [0039] [0040] [0044] [0045]).
Re Claims 3, 11 and 19: Callow in view of Hailey discloses the claimed invention supra and Callow further discloses wherein determining, by the property marketplace platform, the plurality of TC values comprises
determining the plurality of TC values corresponding to the user for the plurality of properties based on the listings data, the local costs data, and the financing costs data corresponding to the user (Callow, [0015] [0036] [0037] [0040]).
Re Claims 6 and 14: Callow in view of Hailey discloses the claimed invention supra and Callow further discloses wherein determining, by the property marketplace platform, the plurality of TC values comprises:
determining default selections corresponding to a credit rating, a down payment value, and a loan type based on the property financing data (Callow, [0015] [0036] [0037] [0040]); and
determining the plurality of TC values based on the external property data and the determined default selections (Callow, [0015] [0036] [0037] [0040]).
Re Claims 7 and 15: Callow in view of Hailey discloses the claimed invention supra and Callow further discloses wherein the plurality of TC values comprises a plurality of true cost of ownership (TCO) values (Callow, [0015] [0036] [0037] [0040]).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callow in view of Hailey as applied to claims 1, 9 and 19 above, and further in view of Medawar, US Pub. No. 2006/0089842.
Re Claims 4, 12 and 20: Callow in view of Hailey discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose wherein generating, by the property marketplace platform, the visualization data comprises:
receiving, by the property marketplace platform, filter input data from the communications device, wherein the filter input data corresponds to one or more criterion selected by the user for filtering the listings data, and wherein the one or more criterion comprise a maximum TC value for the user, a minimum TC value for the user, or combinations thereof.
Medawar discloses wherein generating, by the property marketplace platform, the visualization data comprises:
receiving, by the property marketplace platform, filter input data from the communications device, wherein the filter input data corresponds to one or more criterion selected by the user for filtering the listings data, and wherein the one or more criterion comprise a maximum TC value for the user, a minimum TC value for the user, or combinations thereof (Medawar, [0011] [0015] [0037] [0040] [0053] [0055]).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Medawar is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to property evaluation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Callow in view of Hailey by further adopting the teachings of Medawar to provide wherein generating, by the property marketplace platform, the visualization data comprises: receiving, by the property marketplace platform, filter input data from the communications device, wherein the filter input data corresponds to one or more criterion selected by the user for filtering the listings data, and wherein the one or more criterion comprise a maximum TC value for the user, a minimum TC value for the user, or combinations thereof.
One would have been motivated to improve accuracy, precision and user convenience.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Re Claims 5 and 13: Callow in view of Hailey and Medawar discloses the claimed invention supra and Medawar further discloses wherein generating, by the property marketplace platform, the visualization data further comprises:
filtering, by the property marketplace platform, the listings data based on the plurality of TC values and the filter input data (Medawar, [0011] [0015] [0037] [0040] [0053] [0055]); and generating, by the property marketplace platform, the visualization data based on the filtered listings data and the plurality of TC values, wherein the filtered listings data corresponds to at least a subset of the plurality of properties (Medawar, [0011] [0015] [0037] [0040] [0053] [0055]).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callow in view of Hailey as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Gokhale, US Pub. No. 2016/0335695.
Re Claims 8 and 16: Callow in view of Hailey discloses the claimed invention supra but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of TC values comprises a plurality of true cost of rent (TCR) values.
Gokhale discloses:
wherein the plurality of TC values comprises a plurality of true cost of rent (TCR) values (Gokhale, [0021] [0038] [0079]).
Analogous Art It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Gokhale is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor as it relates to property evaluation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Callow in view of Hailey by further adopting the teachings of Gokhale to provide wherein the plurality of TC values comprises a plurality of true cost of rent (TCR) values.
One would have been motivated to increase flexibility and user convenience.
The claimed invention applies
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known techniques to improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; applies known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and relates to a property marketplace platform.
US 20210142416 A1
WO 2020210748 A1
US 20110218934 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, EST.
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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights