DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on XXXXXXXXXXXXXX has been entered.
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
Claims X are canceled.
Claims X are new.
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined.
This action is in reply to the papers filed on 05/30/2025 (effective filing date 03/29/2023).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted: 08/29/2025, has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on xxx as modified by the amendment filed on xxx.
Reasons For Allowance
Prior-Art Rejection withdrawn
Claims xxx are allowed. Independent claims X, Y, and Z all contain the same inventive scope. The closest prior art (See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited) does not teach the claimed:
The closest prior-art (xxx) teach the features as disclosed in Non-final Rejection (xxxx), however, these cited references do not teach and the prior-art does not teach at least the following combination of features and/or elements:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101 - Withdrawn
Per Applicant’s amendments and arguments and considering new guidance in the MPEP, the rejections are withdrawn. Specifically, in Applicant’s Remarks (dated 03/14/2017, pgs. 8-11), Applicant traverses the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing that the amended claims recite new limitations that are not abstract, amount to significantly more, are directed to a practical application, etc… For example, Applicant argues….
In support of their arguments, Applicant cites to the following recent Fed. Cir. court cases (i.e., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, Berkheimer, Core Wireless, McRO, Enfish, Bascom, DDR, etc…).
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims recite a system for implementing an automated title transfer system.
Claim 1 recites [a] property interactive system, comprising: a selectable property by a front-end user within a front-end user functionality triggering a plurality of back-end user functionalities; the plurality of back-end user functionalities generate a title monitoring module and generate a rapid report module; the back-end user functionality will access a property appraiser site and perform A.I. data scraping of a buyer, seller, transaction date, transaction and amount which is indexed by a chain of title through an index folio number and an index property information; the plurality of back-end user functionalities will access appropriate municipal records and determine if there are open permits on the selectable property and perform A.I. data scraping of a permit type, a date issued, a date applied, an expirations date, a district, a description and index and store information within the chain of title and formulate the generated rapid report, and send the generated rapid report to the front-end user, the back-end user functionality will repeat the process in a repeated daily timeframe.
The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-13 recite a system/apparatus and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The following tables identify the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea. The column that identifies the additional elements will be relevant to the analysis in step 2A, prong two, and step 2B.
Claim 1: Identification of Abstract Idea and Additional Elements, using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
Claim Limitation
Abstract Idea
Additional Element
1. A property interactive system, comprising:
No additional elements are positively claimed.
The preamble is given little patentable weight.
a selectable property by a front-end user within a front-end user functionality triggering a plurality of back-end user functionalities;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: a selectable property by a front-end user within a front-end user functionality triggering a plurality of back-end user functionalities.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a system for implementing an automated title transfer system which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
The ‘selectable property,’ ‘front-end user,’ and ‘back-end user’ are NOT considered Additional Elements. They are interpreted as purely software or code.
the plurality of back-end user functionalities generate a title monitoring module and generate a rapid report module;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: the plurality of back-end user functionalities generate a title monitoring module and generate a rapid report module.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a system for implementing an automated title transfer system which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
The ‘title monitoring module,’ ‘rapid report module,’ and ‘back-end user’ are NOT considered Additional Elements. They are interpreted as purely software or code.
the back-end user functionality will access a property appraiser site and perform A.I. data scraping of a buyer, seller, transaction date, transaction and amount which is indexed by a chain of title through an index folio number and an index property information;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: the back-end user functionality will access a property appraiser site and perform A.I. data scraping of a buyer, seller, transaction date, transaction and amount which is indexed by a chain of title through an index folio number and an index property information.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a system for implementing an automated title transfer system which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
The ‘property appraiser site’ and ‘back-end user’ are NOT considered Additional Elements. They are interpreted as purely software or code.
the plurality of back-end user functionalities will access appropriate municipal records and determine if there are open permits on the selectable property and perform A.I. data scraping of a permit type, a date issued, a date applied, an expirations date, a district, a description and
This limitation includes the step(s) of: the plurality of back-end user functionalities will access appropriate municipal records and determine if there are open permits on the selectable property and perform A.I. data scraping of a permit type, a date issued, a date applied, an expirations date, a district, a description.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a system for implementing an automated title transfer system which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
The ‘back-end user’ is NOT considered Additional Elements. They are interpreted as purely software or code.
index and store information within the chain of title and formulate the generated rapid report, and
This limitation includes the step(s) of: index and store information within the chain of title and formulate the generated rapid report.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a system for implementing an automated title transfer system which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
The ‘chain of title’ and ‘rapid report’ are NOT considered Additional Elements. They are interpreted as purely software or code.
send the generated rapid report to the front-end user, the back-end user functionality will repeat the process in a repeated daily timeframe.
This limitation includes the step(s) of: send the generated rapid report to the front-end user, the back-end user functionality will repeat the process in a repeated daily timeframe.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a system for implementing an automated title transfer system which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
The ‘front-end user,’ ‘back-end user,’ and ‘rapid report’ are NOT considered Additional Elements. They are interpreted as purely software or code.
As shown above, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of implementing an automated title transfer system, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a is aptly categorized as a mental process, and/or a method of organizing human activity. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
The method claims do NOT recite any additional elements. Consequently, at least the method claims must be construed as abstract and capable of being performed mentally and/or manually with just pen and paper. The Office encourages Applicant to positively claim the structural features necessary to perform each individual method step and feature.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: a user device for implementing the method claims (Claims 8-14, method claims), a processor and computer readable medium for implementing the CRM claims (Claims 15-20, CRM claims), and processor and memory for implementing the system claims (Claims 1-7, system claims). Scanning the bar code of an item using an RFID reader, receiving a WAP link, and sending an SMS message to a user with a link to webpages. Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional technical elements including: a user device for implementing the method claims (Claims 8-14, method claims), a processor and computer readable medium for implementing the CRM claims (Claims 15-20, CRM claims), and processor and memory for implementing the system claims (Claims 1-7, system claims). These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Examiner further notes that the “offer intelligence tool” is nothing more than a software application being executed on a generic retailer computer. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There are not ‘additional elements’ positively claimed for implementing or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating, receiving, processing, analyzing, and outputting/displaying data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Furthermore, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of any computer. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, as there are NO additional elements claimed there are not meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate, receive, send, process, analyze, output, or display data.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Capturing an image (code) with an RFID reader. Ritter, US Patent No. 7734507 (Col. 3, Lines 56-67); “RFID: Riding on the Chip” by Pat Russo. Frozen Food Age. New York: Dec. 2003, vol. 52, Issue 5; page S22.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Storing and retrieving information in memory. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Using a machine learning model to determine user segment characteristics for an ad campaign. https://whites.agency/blog/how-to-use-machine-learning-for-customer-segmentation/.
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-13 further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Invention Could be Performed Manually
It is conceivable that the invention could be performed manually without the aid of machine and/or computer. For example, Applicant claims selecting a property, performing title monitoring, accessing a property appraiser site and scraping or collecting data from the site, etc… Each of these features could be performed manually and/or with the aid of a simple generic computer to facilitate the transmission of data.
See also Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., and In re Venner, which stand for the concept that automating manual activity and/or applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices to accomplish the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Here, applicant is merely claiming computers to facilitate and/or automate functions which used to be commonly performed by a human.
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) "[a]pplying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years…"). The combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.
In In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04, III Automating a Manual Activity.
MPEP 2144.04 III - Automating a Manual Activity and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) further stand for and provide motivation for using technology, hardware, computer, or server to automate a manual activity.
Therefore, the Office finds no improvements to another technology or field, no improvements to the function of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no limitations in any of the claims that transform the exception (i.e., the abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Claim Rejections - Not an Ordered Combination
None of the limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - Preemption
Allowing the claims, as presently claimed, would preempt others from implementing a title transfer system. Furthermore, the claim language only recites the abstract idea of performing this method, there are no concrete steps articulating a particular way in which this idea is being implemented or describing how it is being performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – software per se
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 is an apparatus/system claim, however, the body of claim 1 does not disclose any structural features. Rather, the body of claim 1 is interpreted as purely software for performing the steps necessary to implement a title transfer system. Therefore, claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is directed to software which is not a statutory class of invention.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: McCarthy 2021/0287313; in view of Devanur et al. 2023/0260035; in further view of Schwalb 2007/0106647.
19/223,176 – Claim 1. McCarthy 2021/0287313 teaches A property interactive system, comprising: a selectable property by a front-end user within a front-end user functionality triggering a plurality of back-end user functionalities (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0031 - can provide aspects of OCR functionality … the computing device 102, particularly the NLP engine 108, utilizes tools for natural language processing (NLP) … Core™ NLP (from Stamford University) and Watson™ NLP (from IBM) can be used to provide aspects of NLP and NLP functionality…][0200 - FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary user interface 600 with aspects of the above-described functionality represented in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. The user interface 600 displays information obtained as described in FIGS. 2-5.][0223 - Embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back-end component, e.g., as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, e.g., an application server, or that includes a front-end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the subject matter described in this specification, or any combination of one or more such back-end, middleware, or front-end components. The components of the system can be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication, e.g., a communication network. Examples of communication networks include a local area network (LAN) and a wide area network (WAN), e.g., the Internet]); the plurality of back-end user functionalities generate a title monitoring module and generate a rapid report module (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0044 – reports and reporting][0045 - FIG. 3 illustrates generating an automated deed history pipeline using system 100, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. As described herein, system 100 searches for and analyzes documents related to a parcel of real property in three stages: performing a deed search by current owner/locus, walking through the deeds for a full title history, and generating deed summary data][0208 - FIG. 8 illustrates a programmatic interface 800 that can integrated with other technology such as an API to run title searches from Zillow™ or Homelite™, in accordance with an example embodiment. In the example embodiment, the API interface 800 uses open API REST web service standards. The user enters into interface 800 as much information as the user know about the property and the current owner(s). This is used by computing device 102 to investigate the property and any possible associations for the Title recording][0217 - In order to realize aspects of the above-described functionality, one of skill in the art may implement a computer program, which may also be referred to or described as a program, software, a software application, a module, a software module, a script, or code, may be written in any form of programming language, including compiled or interpreted languages, or declarative or procedural languages; and it can be deployed in any form, including as a stand-alone program or as a module, component, subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment. A program may, but need not, correspond to a file in a file system][0223 – front-end and back-end components…]); the back-end user functionality will access a property appraiser site and perform A.I. data scraping (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0031 - The computing device 102, particularly the OCR engine 106, utilizes tools for object character recognition (OCR). For example, Teseract™ and ABBY™ can provide aspects of OCR functionality. In addition, the computing device 102, particularly the NLP engine 108, utilizes tools for natural language processing (NLP). For example, Core™ NLP (from Stamford University) and Watson™ NLP (from IBM) can be used to provide aspects of NLP and NLP functionality. Various combinations of these and other artificial intelligence (AI) technologies may be used as well.][0035 - the computing device 102 obtains the data from the registry by perform API requests. In situations where registry records are stored in outdated monolithic systems with no API or SQL access, a Web Browsing robot is created to perform search automation that matches that of a human search. This is a training operation where the title examiner demonstrates how they perform the search and the computing device 102 learns and replays that very search method. ][0223 – front-end and back-end components…]) of a buyer, seller, transaction date, transaction and amount which is indexed by a chain of title through an index folio number and an index property information (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0017 - search results are analyzed and evaluated using computer implemented systems, methods, apparatus to generate a chronological transaction history for the parcel of real property of interest][0032 - local (e.g. state, county, city, town) governments may maintain an online accessible database where users can search for, get copies of, or update property ownership records, such as deeds and mortgages][0034 - metadata associated with each document is also “downloaded” by the computing device 102 for review and data capture. Each registry may maintain metadata associated with the file submitted by attorneys when recorded. The metadata attempts to define the document type, town, date, consideration, grantors/grantees, locus, street, parties involved, references to other documents, legal instrument type, book of record, page of record, description, and registry][0038 – Fig. 2… real estate title chain…][0103 - the NLP engine 108 analyzes the text generated from the OCR conversion using NLP to identify metadata, such as book/page of deed reference, locus, dollar amount, mortgager, and mortgages][0112 - the automation engine 104 compiles a list of mortgages and discharge data and generates a list of objects for a title summary document. In one embodiment, the title summary document includes a title abstract. Based on the records that are analyzed, a chain of title is constructed and any potential defects (e.g., missing discharges, liens, or other title defects) are identified. This document can be used to illustrate locations of risk along a transaction timeline as well as provide an overview of the property history. Based on this information for the parcel, a determination can be made as to whether or not to insure the title against claims as part of a particular real estate transaction]); the plurality of back-end user functionalities will access appropriate municipal records and determine if there are open permits on the selectable property and perform A.I. data scraping of a permit type, a date issued, a date applied, an expirations date, a district, a description (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0016 - Generating a title abstract can include identifying records associated with a particular parcel of real property. These records can include computer databases as well as physical searches of records at local level record repositories, e.g., county records buildings. If a defect is identified, it typically needs to be resolved (e.g., a lien removed), or potentially excluded from coverage, before title insurance is issued.][0018 – permits][0032 - the database 110 includes one or more of an online property deed registry or a mortgage registry. For example, local (e.g. state, county, city, town) governments may maintain an online accessible database where users can search for, get copies of, or update property ownership records, such as deeds and mortgages][0034 - metadata attempts to define the document type, town, date, consideration, grantors/grantees, locus, street, parties involved, references to other documents, legal instrument type, book of record, page of record, description, and registry][0223 – front-end and back-end components…]) and index and store information within the chain of title and formulate the generated rapid report (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0044 – reports and reporting][0202 - a memory 706 included in computing device 700 can store computer-readable and computer-executable instructions or software for implementing exemplary embodiments described herein][0205 - Computing device 700 can also include one or more databases 724, such as a hard-drive, CD-ROM, or other computer readable media, for storing data and computer-readable instructions and/or software, which implements embodiments of the system, as described herein, or portions thereof. Exemplary database 724 can also store one or more databases for storing any suitable information required to implement exemplary embodiments]), and send the generated rapid report to the front-end user, the back-end user functionality will repeat the process in a repeated daily timeframe (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [Abstract; Summary; Claim 1][0223 – front-end and back-end components…]).
McCarthy 2021/0287313 may not expressly disclose the “A.I. data scraping” features, however, Devanur et al. 2023/0260035 teaches (Devanur et al. 2023/0260035 [0034 - a system is provided to analyse properties at a scale on more than 25 mutually different factors and assign them a score from 0-100 to identify a strong investment on a selected property using artificial intelligence model. The system comprises components that collect the data, store the data and an AI model that provides the final investment ranking score using the data collected. The data is collected from various third-party systems by means of API connection, web scraping…]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified McCarthy 2021/0287313 to include the features as taught by Devanur et al. 2023/0260035. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features useful for implementing an automated title transfer system which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
McCarthy 2021/0287313 may not expressly disclose the “indexing” features, however, Schwalb 2007/0106647 teaches (Schwalb 2007/0106647 [0003 - the invention relates to a system and method for the integration of tax property information, title chain indexing and scanned document image retrieval][0009 - generating of large reports and indexing of large image repositories][0041 - system and method may provide a title chain report and a scanned document image ordering and download gateway][0044 - The index results can be cross-referenced with the tax results and, conversely, the tax results can be cross-referenced with the index results (342, 344). The tax results can be cross-referenced with the title results and, conversely, the title results can be cross-referenced with the tax results…]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified McCarthy 2021/0287313 to include the features as taught by Schwalb 2007/0106647. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features useful for implementing an automated title transfer system which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: McCarthy 2021/0287313; in view of Devanur et al. 2023/0260035; in further view of Schwalb 2007/0106647; in view of Hill et al. 2020/0012667.
19/223,176 – Claim 2. McCarthy 2021/0287313 further teaches The property interactive system of claim 1, wherein the system further enters the property appraiser site and retrieves relevant property taxes for the selectable property and A.I. data scrapes a date, a tax authority, an amount owed, an amount paid and parcel details (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0016 - Generating a title abstract can include identifying records associated with a particular parcel of real property. These records can include computer databases as well as physical searches of records at local level record repositories, e.g., county records buildings. If a defect is identified, it typically needs to be resolved (e.g., a lien removed), or potentially excluded from coverage, before title insurance is issued][0018 – tax liens…][0034 - he metadata attempts to define the document type, town, date, consideration, grantors/grantees, locus, street, parties involved, references to other documents, legal instrument type, book of record, page of record, description, and registry][0103 - If one or more mortgages are discovered but do not reference the known deeds or addresses, at step 410, the OCR engine 106 runs an OCR conversion against each mortgage document in the search results and converts the mortgage documents to text for NLP. At step 412, the NLP engine 108 analyzes the text generated from the OCR conversion using NLP to identify metadata, such as book/page of deed reference, locus, dollar amount, mortgager, and mortgages. At step 414, the NLP engine produces an object containing the metadata discovered.]).
McCarthy 2021/0287313 may not expressly disclose the “retrieves relevant property taxes for the selectable property” features, however, Hill et al. 2020/0012667 teaches (Hill et al. 2020/0012667 [0021 - Determining the EMV of a property is a critical aspect of real estate taxation, as such value determines the amount of real estate tax due. Various techniques may be used to determine EMV…][0026 - Many jurisdictions store physical information for properties (or “parcels”) in a GIS and store property tax information for the parcels in a separate database.][0031 - The integration application 104 may use one or more of various scraping techniques for each jurisdiction because one jurisdiction may display property tax information differently than another jurisdiction. Scraping techniques may include one or more of submitting a web request to a property tax detail web page to scrape HTML programmatically, programmatically downloading a PDF or other document and extracting text from it, making a web request to a web service endpoint that returns JSON or HTML and parsing it, etc. In an example embodiment, the integration application 104 may forward the scraped property tax information to the integrated database 106; the integrated database 106 then integrates the scraped property tax information with the GIS records as appropriate.]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified McCarthy 2021/0287313 to include the features as taught by Hill et al. 2020/0012667. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features useful for implementing an automated title transfer system which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: McCarthy 2021/0287313; in view of Devanur et al. 2023/0260035; in further view of Schwalb 2007/0106647; in view of Hill et al. 2020/0012667; in view of Balogh 2007/0156417.
19/223,176 – Claim 3. McCarthy 2021/0287313 further teaches The property interactive system of claim 2, wherein the system further enters a clerk of a court and comptroller database and access a search code enforcement using the folio number of the selectable property (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0032 - the database 110 includes one or more of an online property deed registry or a mortgage registry. For example, local (e.g. state, county, city, town) governments may maintain an online accessible database where users can search for, get copies of, or update property ownership records, such as deeds and mortgages (for example, https://www.masslandrecord.com/)][0047 - the automation engine 104 uses the name at a registry site or database to perform a deed search against information associated with the property owner (late name, first name, city/town, etc.)]).
McCarthy 2021/0287313 may not expressly disclose the “court and comptroller database” features, however, Balogh 2007/0156417 teaches (Balogh 2007/0156417 [0018 - identifying one or more courts in which to search for a probate estate 114 of each client account database record. In some embodiments, a court in which to search for a probate estate is identified at 114 based on address information in a client account database record. For example, one embodiment includes a court table in a database. The court table includes the columns city, state, zip, and court. The columns city, state, and zip form a unique key. Thus, when submitting a database query to select a court using the city, state, and zip code of an address as the key, the query will return a single court.][0020 - For each identified court at 114 of a client account database record without a previously identified court, the method 100 searches an estate database to locate the estate at 118. The estate database, in some embodiments, includes records of identified probate estates. The estate database, in some embodiments, is a proprietary database of an entity performing the method 100. In some embodiments, the estate database includes publicly available data from courts, newspapers, public notices, and from previous probate estate searches.][0040 - Court Database 326--This table includes data identifying courts that have jurisdiction over probate estates in certain geographic areas. In some embodiments, the court database 326 provides a one-to-one relationship between a city, state, zip code combination and a single probate court. Thus, when determining what court in which to search for a probate estate, a decedents city, state, and zip can be used as a key as described above.]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified McCarthy 2021/0287313 to include the features as taught by Balogh 2007/0156417. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features useful for implementing an automated title transfer system which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: McCarthy 2021/0287313; in view of Devanur et al. 2023/0260035; in further view of Schwalb 2007/0106647; in view of Hill et al. 2020/0012667; in view of Balogh 2007/0156417; in view of Fraley, IV et al. 2023/0209112.
19/223,176 – Claim 4. McCarthy 2021/0287313 further teaches The property interactive system of claim 3, wherein the system determines whether a violation has occurred and A.I. data scrapes relevant information including a name of violator, an address of the violator, a code section, a description, an issuing department, a date and an inspector and stores a code of enforcement report in the index within the chain of title (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0005 - real estate title chain][0031 - artificial intelligence (AI) technologies may be used as well][0041]).
McCarthy 2021/0287313 may not expressly disclose the “determines whether a violation has occurred and A.I. data scrapes relevant information” features, however, Fraley, IV et al. 2023/0209112 teaches (Fraley, IV et al. 2023/0209112 [0023 - scrape the notification 105 for policy violation][0037 - used to scrape the notification 105 for the policy violation attributes. In some examples, the standard expression patterns may be selected based on a particular reporting agent 114 from which the notification 105 is received…]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified McCarthy 2021/0287313 to include the features as taught by Fraley, IV et al. 2023/0209112. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features useful for implementing an automated title transfer system which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: McCarthy 2021/0287313; in view of Devanur et al. 2023/0260035; in further view of Schwalb 2007/0106647; in view of Hill et al. 2020/0012667; in view of Balogh 2007/0156417; in view of Fraley, IV et al. 2023/0209112.
19/223,176 – Claim 5. McCarthy 2021/0287313 further teaches The property interactive system of claim 4, wherein the system enters the clerk of the court and comptroller database and accesses relevant mortgages and deeds of the relevant property and A.I. data scrapes relevant details such as a mortgage term, a date, a collateral address, an amount, a tax I.D and stores information in the index within the chain of title (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [Figs. 2-4; 0005-0007; 0018; 0032; 0033; 0041-0043]).
19/223,176 – Claim 6. McCarthy 2021/0287313 further teaches The property interactive system of claim 5, wherein the system will search for relevant judgements when no deed is located within the database (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0016 - Generating a title abstract can include identifying records associated with a particular parcel of real property. These records can include computer databases as well as physical searches of records at local level record repositories, e.g., county records buildings. If a defect is identified, it typically needs to be resolved (e.g., a lien removed), or potentially excluded from coverage, before title insurance is issued.][0018 - liens][0114 - FIG. 5 illustrates generating an automated relevant document history pipeline using system 100 after performing the mortgage and discharge search described in FIG. 4, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. As described herein, system 100 searches for and analyzes documents (other than deeds/mortgages and related mortgage discharges) related to a parcel of real property in three stages: all other document search by deed and address reference, walking through relevant document history names for a full relevant document history, and generating relevant document summary data. Relevant documents include, but are not limited to, Federal Liens, State Liens, Trusts, Probate, Divorce, and Judgements.]).
19/223,176 – Claim 7. McCarthy 2021/0287313 further teaches The property interactive system of claim 6, wherein the system locates judgement and A.I. data scrapes a date, a court, a plaintiff, a defendant, an amount owed by parties and stores a judgment report in the index within the chain of title (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0040 - court][0104 - external searches may be run against court systems, probate and other systems]).
19/223,176 – Claim 8. McCarthy 2021/0287313 further teaches The property interactive system of claim 7, wherein the system will search for liens on the selectable property when no judgement is located within the database (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0018 - liens]).
No Prior-art Rejection / Potentially Allowable
Claims 9-13 cannot be rejected with prior-art. Individual claimed features are taught in the prior-art, however, the unique combination of features and elements are not taught by the prior-art without hindsight reasoning. These claims are further rejected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but might possibly be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
19/223,176 – Claim 9. McCarthy 2021/0287313 further teaches The property interactive system of claim 8, wherein the system locates a lien and A.I. data scrapes a company who filed the lien, a date, an agent, a contact, a violator, an address, a case number, a description, a violation, an amount owed and stores a lien report in the index within the chain of title (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0018 - liens]).
19/223,176 – Claim 10. McCarthy 2021/0287313 further teaches The property interactive system of claim 9, wherein the system will search for quit claim deeds on the selectable property within the database (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0112 - a determination can be made as to whether or not to insure the title against claims as part of a particular real estate transaction]).
19/223,176 – Claim 11. McCarthy 2021/0287313 further teaches The property interactive system of claim 10, wherein the system will locate a quit claim deed and A.I. data scrape a date, a guarentor, a guarantee, a guarantee address, a parcel I.D and store relevant information in a quit claim deed report in the index within the chain of title (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0018 - The chronological transaction history, in various aspects, may include information related to, but not limited to, one or more of the following: mortgages, discharges, assignments, subordinate mortgages, municipal liens, assignments of rents and leases, assignments of plans, specification and approvals, deeds, trustees of deeds, a declaration of homestead, a taking, an order of conditions, a license agreement…]).
19/223,176 – Claim 12. McCarthy 2021/0287313 further teaches The property interactive system of claim 11, wherein the system will search for notices regarding the selectable property (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0018 - notice]).
19/223,176 – Claim 13. McCarthy 2021/0287313 further teaches The property interactive system of claim 12, wherein the system will locate a notice and A.I. data scrape a date, a folio number, a clerks office, an address, an owner name and a contractor and store relevant information in a notices report in the index within the chain of title (McCarthy 2021/0287313 [0005 – title chain][0031 - AI][0039-0042 - owner]).
Examiner’s Response to Arguments
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping 35 USC 101 rejection including Applicant’s amendments, arguments, lack of abstract idea, and practical integration.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claims 1-15, on page(s) 6-12 of Applicant’s Remarks (dated 12/27/2016), Applicants traverse the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing the following:
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 / § 103
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping prior-art rejection including Applicant’s amendments and arguments and unique combination of features and elements not taught by the prior-art without hindsight reasoning.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claim X, on page(s) 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks / After Final Amendments (dated 07/15/2011), Applicant(s) argues that the cited reference(s) (Ellis and Vandermolen) fails to teach, describe, or suggest the amended features. Specifically, Applicant(s) argues that cited reference(s) do not teach, describe, or suggest the following: . With respect, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the amended feature(s) remain rejected as follows.
With respect, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the amended feature(s) remain rejected as follows.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Patent Literature
The prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barrow et al. 2017/0242873 [0002 - This disclosure is in the field of aggregating information associated with all geographic points on the earth, where the information is captured from distributed data sources and integrated into a centralized database that may be queried for a complete time history of any geographic point on the earth.][0027 - Examples of legal data include, but are not limited to, deeds or chains of title that include legal descriptions; boundary descriptions; subdivision information, including parcel changes; tax information on the associated parcel; and liens, mortgages, or other encumbrances ever placed or removed]
Brush et al. 2004/0220823 [0002 - The present invention generally relates to real estate agreements and more particularly, to a system and method for procuring real estate agreements, including novel "future real estate agreements," as described below. The system and method provides an incentive for a party to enter into a real estate agreement, which may benefit a charity, non-profit organization or other fundraising entity.]
Carrington [0017 - A web crawler can be used to automatically populate a database of available permits and approvals for particular properties]
Fiete et al. 2019/0378216 [0028 - pull or extract property value data 158 from the property value providers using web harvesting or web data extraction from public or private websites]
Hoffman et al. 2003/0220807 [0003 - This invention relates generally to a real estate transaction system that allows Realtors and clients to create, access and modify information regarding real estate transactions.]
Hoffman et al. 2022/0374975 [0002 - This disclosure relates to a bid management systems and platforms for managing bids for property transactions.]
Livesay 2023/0230054 [0002 - The present disclosure relates generally to systems and methods to digitally automate and semi-automate tasks involving titles and ownership for real, personal, and intellectual property of any kind. In particular, the system provides a multi-layered infrastructure and platform combining public, federated, and private layers in a distributed ledger that are utilized in a networked environment for performing tasks involving property and property transfer.][0072 - functionality][0074 - The functionality or operations described herein and with respect to FIGS. 2-21 may be performed partially or wholly on a processor][0090 – selection tabs]
Reber et al. 2019/0147553 [0004 - title ownership is verified by independent companies combing through county records and producing reports.]
Spath 2019/0057410 [0002 - The subject matter disclosed herein generally relates to real estate searching systems…]
Thomas et al. 2012/0246024 [0003 - According to some embodiments, a system comprises an interface and one or more processors. The interface receives a search request indicating that a buyer requests to search for properties to evaluate. The one or more processors determine one or more buyer preferences that describe preferred characteristics for the properties according to the buyer. The one or more processors also determine whether an available property located proximate to a device associated with the buyer satisfies at least a threshold amount of the buyer preferences. If the available property satisfies at least a threshold amount of buyer preferences, the interface communicates a notification recommending that the buyer evaluate the available property.]
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Non-Patent Literature (NPL)
The NPL prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
J. Wu et al., "Building an Accessible, Usable, Scalable, and Sustainable Service for Scholarly Big Data," 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Orlando, FL, USA, 2021, pp. 141-152, doi: 10.1109/BigData52589.2021.9671612.
A. P. Amadi-Echendu and J. E. Amadi-Echendu, "A study on data and information integration for conveyancing, cadastre and land registry automation," 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Honolulu, HI, USA, 2016, pp. 804-814, doi: 10.1109/PICMET.2016.7806611.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection and FINAL Rejection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T. SITTNER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7137 and email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm (Mountain Time Zone). Please schedule interview requests via email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M. Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833.
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.
/MATTHEW T SITTNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629b
Prosecution Insights