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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on April 21, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Applicant’s remarks and arguments addressed below.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3-6, and 11-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,282,974. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims at issue in this instant application are broader than those in the issued patent. Looking at independent Claims 1 and 11 of the instant application compared to Claims 1 and 11 of the ‘974 patent, these claims recite several of the limitations of Claims 1 and 11 of the issued patent, but the instant application fails to recite every feature present in the parent patent. Thus, when looking at the claims in the instant application, the issued patent, which is narrower but includes all of the limitations of the instant application, would anticipate the claims in this instant application. See MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2). In such a situation, it is per se obvious to claim a broader invention. Therefore, the claims must be rejected under double patenting as anticipated by the issued patent.
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. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, there are multiple steps that may need to be assessed. First, in step 1 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 in step 2A prong 1 whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in step 2A prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in step 2B whether the claim recites “significantly more” than the abstract idea. See “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,” 84 Fed. Reg. (4): 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019).
In the instant case, Claims 1-10 are directed to a computer system and Claims 11-20 are directed toward a method (i.e., process). Therefore, Claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories as required by step 1. Nevertheless, the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea in step 2A prong 1. Independent Claim 1 recites as follows:
Claim 1. A system for providing land acquisition and property development analysis services, the system comprising:
a cloud-based server configured to communicate and exchange data with one or more computing devices over a network, the cloud-based server comprising a hardware processor coupled to non-transitory, computer-readable memory containing instructions executable by the processor to cause the server to:
provide a digital platform comprising an interface with which a user can interact via an associated computing device;
receive session data including user input with the interface, the user input being associated with selection of a geographical area of interest displayed via the interface;
generate, based on the user input, a plurality of processed datasets associated with one or more sites located within the geographical area of interest, wherein each processed dataset comprises information associated with a characteristic of land and/or property of a given site;
generate a scoring attribute for at least some of the plurality of processed datasets, wherein the scoring attribute corresponds to a ranking of viability of an associated characteristic of land and/or property of a given site relative to characteristics of land and/or property of other sites and categorize each of the one or more sites based on analysis of at least one or more scoring attributes of each of the one or more sites; and
output, via the interface, a visual rendering of at least one of the one or more sites located within the geographical area of interest, information associated with a characteristic of land and/or property of a given site, scoring attributes for the land and/or property characteristics, and categorization of the one or more sites.
The bold language above corresponds to the abstract ideas recited in Claim 1 (whereas the underlined language is language that is addressed in step 2A prong 2 and step 2B). As the bold language above demonstrates, Applicant’s claims are directed toward outputting the results of an analysis of a piece of real property such as valuations and other scoring metrics. This is a method of organizing human activity, specifically sales activities or behaviors, because price optimization (such as for the development of real estate) is marketing, i.e., sales activity or behavior. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Examiner notes that, alternatively, the claims can be considered to recite abstract mental processes because analyzing real estate properties and scoring different attributes thereof can be performed in the mind or with pencil and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Finding the claims to be directed toward an abstract idea, however, is not the end of the inquiry. Rather, the next step is to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). The revised guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the exception into a practical application: 1) an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, 2) an additional element that implements the judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, 3) an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 4) an additional element that applies or uses 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. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Examples where a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include: 1) use of “apply it” or the equivalent, i.e., merely using a computer to implement or perform an abstract idea, 2) an additional element that adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 3) an additional element that does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See id.
Applying these considerations to the claims in the instant application, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims fail to recite an improvement of a computer, any improvement to a technology or technical field, any particular machine, any transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or any additional element that uses the judicial exception in a meaningful way. Instead, the claims are merely reciting instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (e.g., with user interactions through the interface), which is insufficient to provide a practical application of the claims and provide subject matter eligibility. See id. Therefore, there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
If the claims are not integrated into a judicial exception, the Examiner must consider whether there is “significantly more” recited in the claim in step 2B. See MPEP § 2106.05. There is nothing unconventional or inventive in Applicant’s claims for the purpose of analysis under step 2B, e.g., any combination of elements that provide an advance over any technological state of the art. Rather, as noted above, an abstract sales activity or abstract mental process is merely implemented by a general-purpose computer along with some data gathering and manipulation steps that are insignificant extra solution activity. Other than the limitations that are abstract for the reasons articulated above, Applicant has merely recited computers and software that provide or achieve the steps of the invention. Thus, Applicant’s claims merely recite a computer to implement the abstract idea, which fails to provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
As the MPEP states, Examiners may consider the following three factors when determining whether the claim recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: 1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; 2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and 3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applying those factors to the instant application: 1) the claims do not recite how the computer performs any of the steps other than just stating that they do it; 2) the claims invoke the computer to perform a process of property evaluation and valuation that has been performed without computers and before the ubiquity of computers; and 3) the claims are generally recited, i.e., not recited in any real particularity because they can apply to any way of analyzing and evaluating the property.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Specifically, they merely recite what data are collected or additional ways of registering the data. In other words, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limitations that, in an ordered combination provide “significantly more;” rather, the dependent claims are merely further reciting features that are just as abstract as independent Claims 1 and 11. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinovic et al. (US 2016/0048935 hereafter “Martinovic”).
Claim 1. Martinovic teaches A system for providing land acquisition and property development analysis services, the system comprising (Abs., Lines 2-3; providing a user interface for specifying details of a development project, receiving, through the user interface, user-input specifying a type for the development project, a location for development project):
Martinovic further teaches a cloud-based server configured to communicate and exchange data with one or more computing devices over a network, the cloud-based server (¶ 44, Lines 1-3; In some implementations, the CREĀT uses a “software as a service” (SaaS) model, which users can access using a web-based interface that can be hosted on the cloud; see also ¶ 99 teaching a cloud hosted SaaS platform) comprising a hardware processor coupled to non-transitory, computer-readable memory containing instructions executable by the processor to cause the server to (Abs., Lines 3-5; computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for providing a user interface for specifying details of a development project):
Martinovic further teaches provide a digital platform comprising an interface (¶s 44 and 99, Lines 1-3; In some implementations, the CREĀT uses a “software as a service” (SaaS) model, which users can access using a web-based interface that can be hosted on the cloud ) with which a user can interact via an associated computing device (¶ 110, Lines 2-7; digital electronic circuitry, or in computer software, firmware, or hardware, including the structures disclosed in this specification and their structural equivalents, or in combinations of one or more of them. Embodiments may be implemented as one or more computer program products);
Martinovic further teaches receive session data including user input with the interface, the user input being associated with selection of a geographical area of interest displayed via the interface (see Figure 4 and ¶s 45-46 teaching a map interface 406 where a lot can be selected via input 408);
Martinovic further teaches generate a scoring attribute for at least some of the plurality of processed datasets, wherein the scoring attribute corresponds to a ranking of viability of an associated characteristic of land and/or property of a given site relative to characteristics of land and/or property of other sites and categorize each of the one or more sites based on analysis of at least one or more scoring attributes of each of the one or more sites (see, e.g., Figure 9 and ¶ 55 teaching surveying comparable properties and providing a set of comparisons to the modeled property; see further ¶s 58 and 84 teaching substantially the same); and
Martinovic further teaches output, via the interface, a visual rendering of at least one of the one or more sites located within the geographical area of interest, information associated with a characteristic of land and/or property of a given site, scoring attributes for the land and/or property characteristics, and categorization of the one or more sites (see, e.g., Figure 4 and ¶ 46 teaching a map interface 406; see also ¶ 84 teaching a heat map of the property compared to other properties in geographic proximity),
Regarding Claim 11, this claim recites a method but is otherwise co-extensive in scope with Claim 1. The rejection of Claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Claim 2. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Martinovic further teaches wherein the digital platform provides a web mapping service and outputs, via the interface, an interactive map of a geographical location, wherein the visual rendering of a geographic location comprises map data and/or imagery of the geographical location (see Figure 4 and ¶ 46 teaching that the user can input the location of the parcel, such as by selecting it from a map interface 406 or by using one or more square and lot combinations, e.g., lot input 408).
Claim 3. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 2. Martinovic further teaches wherein the user selection of the geographical area of interest comprises either a text-based search or a search based on a user-defined boundary on the interactive map, wherein the text-based search comprises a search for at least one of an address, geographic coordinates, or a place of interest and wherein the user-defined boundary comprises a lasso-type search (¶s 45-46 and Figure 4 teaching that the user can input the location of the parcel or use a text based search box to search).
Claim 4. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 3. Martinovic further teaches wherein the server comprises a processing engine configured to read one or more datasets from third party sources based on the user selection of the geographical area of interest and further analyze the one or more third party source datasets based, at least in part, on a set of data processing rules and set of scalar and spatial functions to generate the plurality of processed datasets (¶s 45-46 and Figure 4 teaching that the user can input the location of the parcel or use a text based search box to search).
Claim 5. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 4. Martinovic further teaches wherein the third-party source datasets comprise data provided by a publicly available or subscription-based data source (see, e.g., ¶ 47 and Figure 5 teaching data sets 502 and sources 504 that include third party sets; see further ¶ 90 teaching using US Census Bureau data sets; see additionally Claims 2, 10, 15, 16, 17, and 18).
Claim 6. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 5. Martinovic further teaches wherein each processed dataset is associated with a corresponding analysis performed via the processing engine for a given site located within the geographical area of interest and comprises information associated with a characteristic of land and/or property of a given site (see, e.g., ¶ 47 and Figure 5 teaching data sets 502 and sources 504 that include third party sets that are used for the analyses of the property or properties that are mentioned in ¶s 45-46 and Figure 4).
Claim 7. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 6. Martinovic further teaches: wherein the processing engine generates scoring attributes for a given site based, at least in part, on the analyses and categorizes a given site into a defined category of land or property type based on analysis of at least one or more scoring attributes (see ¶ 84 teaching providing a heat map indicating scoring attributes of relative or comparative returns of the target property and other properties in proximity of the building, including limiting the analysis to a user-defined specific use type, i.e., a categorization of the location).
Claim 8. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 7. Martinovic further teaches: wherein the scoring attributes are selected from the group consisting of developed area score, environmental score, flood zone score, listed buildings score, strategic area score, shape score, commercial customer’s score, drive time score for house prices, land use score, proximity amenities score, revenue per acre score, road frontages score, and site size score (see, e.g., ¶ 84 teaching a heat map of potential investment returns, i.e., strategic area score or developed area scores for particular properties in particular areas); the categories are selected from the group consisting of housing, social housing, condominium, apartments, affordable apartments, student accommodation, care homes, luxury homes, hotels, industrial, retail, commercial offices, storage, physician or general practitioner, school, restaurants/pubs, gym, car showroom, and car wash (see, e.g., Figure 7 teaching, e.g., categories such as retail, hotel, and office).
Claim 9. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Martinovic further teaches wherein the server is further configured to generate a gross development value (GDV) calculation for the one or more sites, wherein a processing engine of the server is configured to generated the GDV calculation based, at least in part, on an analysis of one or more processed datasets, scoring attributes, and categorizations performed via the processing engine for a given site (see, e.g., ¶s 48 and 52 and Claim 8 teaching determining a maximum by-right value for the property).
Claim 10. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Martinovic further teaches wherein the server is configured to output, via the interface, an architectural visualization of potential properties on a given site, wherein the visualization comprises a three-dimensional (3D) rendering of one or more properties on a given site based, at least in part, on user input with the interface, the user input comprising user selected development template (see ¶ 38 teaching CAD compatibility to render three dimensional real estate development projects; see further ¶ 45 and Figure 4 teaching architectural renderings of a development on a parcel of land; see further ¶s 85-88 and Figure 14 further explaining the project renderings and the different templates and user inputs that can affect the renderings).
Claim 12. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Martinovic further teaches: providing, via the digital platform, a web mapping service and outputting, via the interface, an interactive map of a geographical locations, wherein the user selection of the geographical area of interest comprises either a text-based search or a search based on a user-defined boundary on the interactive map (¶s 45-46 and Figure 4 teaching that the user can input the location of the parcel or use a text-based search box to search).
Claim 13. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 12. Martinovic further teaches further comprising reading, via a processing engine of the server, one or more datasets from third party sources based on the user selection of the geographical area of interest, and analyzing, via the processing engine, the one or more third party source datasets based, at least in part, on a set of data processing rules and set of scalar and spatial functions to generate the plurality of processed datasets (¶s 45-46 and Figure 4 teaching that the user can input the location of the parcel or use a text based search box to search).
Claim 14. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 13. Martinovic further teaches further comprising associating each processed dataset with a corresponding analysis performed via the processing engine for a given site located within the geographical area of interest and comprises information associated with a characteristic of land and/or property of a given site (see, e.g., ¶ 47 and Figure 5 teaching data sets 502 and sources 504 that include third party sets that are used for the analyses of the property or properties that are mentioned in ¶s 45-46 and Figure 4).
Claim 15. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 14. Martinovic further teaches: generating, via the processing engine, scoring attributes for a given site based, at least in part, on the analyses (see ¶ 84 teaching providing a heat map indicating scoring attributes of relative or comparative returns of the target property and other properties in proximity of the building, including limiting the analysis to a user-defined specific use type, i.e., a categorization of the location).
Claim 16. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 15. Martinovic further teaches wherein the scoring attributes are selected from the group consisting of developed area score, environmental score, flood zone score, listed buildings score, strategic area score, shape score, commercial competitor’s score, commercial customer’s score, drive time score for house prices, land use score, proximity amenities score, revenue per acre score, road frontages score, and site size score (see, e.g., ¶ 84 teaching a heat map of potential investment returns, i.e., strategic area score or developed area scores for particular properties in particular areas).
Claim 17. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 16. Martinovic further teaches further comprising categorizing, via the processing engine, a given site into a defined category of land or property type based on analysis of at least one or more scoring attributes (see ¶ 84 teaching providing a heat map indicating scoring attributes of relative or comparative returns of the target property and other properties in proximity of the building, including limiting the analysis to a user-defined specific use type, i.e., a categorization of the location; see additionally, e.g., Figure 7 teaching, e.g., categories such as retail, hotel, and office).
Claim 18. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Martinovic further teaches wherein the server is further configured to generate a gross development value (GDV) calculation for the one or more sites (see, e.g., ¶s 48 and 52 and Claim 8 teaching determining a maximum by-right value for the property).
Claim 19. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 18. Martinovic further teaches further comprising generating, via a processing engine of the server, the GDV calculation based, at least in part, on an analysis of one or more processed datasets, scoring attributes, and categorizations performed via the processing engine for a given site (see, e.g., ¶s 48 and 52 and Claim 8 teaching determining a maximum by-right value for the property).
Claim 20. Martinovic teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Martinovic further teaches: outputting, via the interface, an architectural visualization of potential properties on a given site, wherein the visualization comprises a three-dimensional (3D) rendering of one or more properties on a given site based, at least in part, on user input with the interface, the user input comprising user selected development template (see ¶ 38 teaching CAD compatibility to render three dimensional real estate development projects; see further ¶ 45 and Figure 4 teaching architectural renderings of a development on a parcel of land; see further ¶s 85-88 and Figure 14 further explaining the project renderings and the different templates and user inputs that can affect the renderings).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JAN P MINCARELLI whose telephone number is (571)270-5909. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Nathan C. Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JAN P MINCARELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626