DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2025, 09/18/2025, 10/07/2025, and 01/05/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
5. In the instant case, claims 1, 7, 15, and 20 are directed “a method, systems, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for generating virtual model features”.
6. Claim 1 recites “generating an object model for risk assessment”. Specifically, claim 1 recites [abstract ideas emphasized in bold] “receiving, by a processor, a virtual coordinate of a physical object and within a virtual environment; translating, by the processor, the virtual coordinate into Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates corresponding to a real-world location; generating and transmitting, by the processor, to a remote imaging vehicle, a notification comprising the GPS coordinates; capturing, by the processor via the remote imaging vehicle, at least one image of the physical object at the real-world location; receiving, by the processor, the at least one image from the remote imaging vehicle; generating, by the processor, a virtual model of the physical object using the at least one image, wherein the virtual model is comprised of a plurality of features; modifying, by the processor, one or more of the plurality of features to generate a plurality of modified features of the virtual model; and displaying, by the processor, the virtual model on a display, wherein the virtual model comprises the plurality of modified features”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices), and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
7. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claim 1 such as “a processor”, “a virtual coordinate of a physical object and within a virtual environment”, “Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates”, “a remote imaging vehicle”, “a virtual model”, and “displaying, by the processor, the virtual model on a display” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “transmitting, by the processor, to a remote imaging vehicle, a notification comprising the GPS coordinates” is simply transmitting data, “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
8. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform generating an object model for risk assessment and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
9. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
10. Claims 7, 15, and 20 also recite “generating an object model for risk assessment”. Subject matter grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices), and an abstract idea in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
11. As in the case of claim 1, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04 II), the additional elements of claims 7, 15, and 20 such as “memory”, “a processor”, “a virtual coordinate of a physical object and within a virtual environment”, “Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates”, “a remote imaging vehicle”, “a virtual model”, “displaying the virtual model on a display”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “means for receiving”, “means for translating”, “means for generating and transmitting”, “means for capturing”, “means for receiving”, “means for generating”, “means for modifying”, and “means for displaying” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “transmitting, to a remote imaging vehicle, a notification comprising the GPS coordinates” is simply transmitting data, “[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
12. When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04 II), as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform generating an object model for risk assessment and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
13. Hence, claims 7, 15, and 20 are not patent eligible.
14. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-19 merely expand upon the abstract ideas of the independent claims and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 7, and 15 respectively.
Conclusion of 35 USC §101
15. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
16. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
18. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
19. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
20. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160314545A1 to Jessen in view of US20160048934A1 to Gross.
21. As per claim 1:
Jessen discloses the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method for generating virtual model features, the computer-implemented method comprising ([0015] “…In some instances, the drone may be dispatched to collect missing information, to verify information about the physical property, gather previously uncollected data, map the property in three dimensions, and/or to provide a real-time virtual experience of the physical property.”)
receiving, by a processor, a virtual coordinate of a physical object and within a virtual environment ([0094] “…In some instances, an entity associated with a profile may indicate the preference for the geographic region by drawing and/or outlining boundaries on a displayed map (such as a digital mapping interface).”, [0087] “…In some instances, the drone 602 may be controllable by a viewer of the real-time display to provide interactions with the drone and a virtual 3-D environment…”)
translating, by the processor, the virtual coordinate into Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates corresponding to a real-world location ([0035] “…Additionally or alternatively, location information (e.g., GPS coordinates, address, etc.) may comprise a different one of the columns 210 than the property identity column 216.”, [0077] “In some embodiments, the drone 502 may comprise a location module 528 for determining a location of the drone 502, navigating the drone 502 to and/or from a location (such as a location of a physical property) and/or for geocoding the location (e.g., the drone 502 may comprise spatial awareness software such as Google® Tango®)…”)
generating and transmitting, by the processor, to a remote imaging vehicle, a notification comprising the GPS coordinates ([0069] “…In some embodiments, the data supplementation module 408 may send a request to the drone 404 to provide the missing and/or unverified information. For instance, the request may include location information of the physical property 416 of the missing information (e.g., from the property information database 402) and/or a property metric to be measured, recorded, identified at the physical property 416 and/or at a neighborhood 418 of the physical property 416…”, [claim 16] “…receiving a request to survey a property, the request including location information of the property, and property value-affecting information to be collected by the drone…”, [0086] “…In some instances, the drone 602 may be dispatched in response to receiving an instruction from a module of the system 600 such that the drone 602 may be dispatched automatically, autonomously, and/or without human interaction.”)
capturing, by the processor via the remote imaging vehicle, at least one image of the physical object at the real-world location ([0087] “In some examples, the drone 602 may use the location information of the physical property to travel (e.g., fly) to the physical property 604. The drone may direct one or more sensors 606 at the physical property (e.g., a feature of the physical property 608) to acquire a property metric value corresponding to the property metric to be measured, as noted above with regard to FIG. 5…”, [0083] “…By way of example, the drone 502 may capture a photograph of the physical property and compare it to a pre-stored photograph to determine the presence of, for instance, corrosion, oxidization, mold, etc.”)
receiving, by the processor, the at least one image from the remote imaging vehicle ([0072] “… For instance, the source (e.g., the drone 404, the database accessed through the network 406, etc.) may send the requested information to the property information database 402 and/or to the data supplementation module 408 (which may send the requested information to the property information database 402)…”, [0084] “… Additionally or alternatively, the drone 502 may upload property information wirelessly, e.g., using the transmitter, transceiver 518 and/or transponder, through a data connection (e.g., 4G, 5G, LTE network, etc.), through Wi-Fi, and/or the like…”)
generating, by the processor, a virtual model of the physical object using the at least one image, wherein the virtual model is comprised of a plurality of features ([0080] “…In some embodiments, multiple drones 502 may survey and/or collect information at a single location and/or may collect data to construct a 3-D image, and/or any other information that may be re-constructed for presenting a virtual simulation of the property.”, [0087] “…The drone 602 may collect information indicating a status of one or more features of the house (e.g., a window, roof, foundation, yard, patio, sprinkler system, etc.)… The drone 602 may comprise 3-D mapping software, such as Matterport and/or Google® Tango®…”)
modifying, by the processor, one or more of the plurality of features to generate a plurality of modified features of the virtual model ([0043] “In some examples, the property valuation module 204 may calculate a predicted property value using one or more property metric values associated with the physical properties and/or one or more ‘potential’ (e.g., hypothetical) property metric values as well as financial metrics such as an interest rate, an exchange rate, and/or a bond yield curve…By way of example, the property valuation module 204 may calculate that the property may have a ‘potential’ predicted property value if, for instance, the property metric of ‘bathrooms’ were changed from a property metric value of ‘2’ to a ‘potential’ property metric value of ‘3’.”, [0038] “…wear condition, historical listed prices, historical transaction information, photos, videos, information derived from photos and/or videos…”)
Jessen does not disclose, however, Gross, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
displaying, by the processor, the virtual model on a display, wherein the virtual model comprises the plurality of modified features ([0198] “…In this section the computing system provides a visual simulated version of the homeowner's structure as it could appear if remediated using the products/services proffered in the marketing materials…”, [0199] “…The annotated structure data and all other sections would be presented within a conventional browser or mobile equivalent for perusal…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for displaying a simulated version of the structure as it would appear with the modified (remediated/improved) building elements, including electronic presentation within a browser or mobile interface (‘934, [0198]-[0199]).
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
As per claims 7 and 20 Jessen additionally discloses the following limitations:
A system for generating virtual model features, the system comprising: memory configured to store non-transitory computer executable instructions; and a processor interfacing with the memory, and configured to execute the non-transitory computer executable instructions to cause the processor to perform operations comprising: ([0023] “…One or more of the computing device/s may include a processor 108, the memory 104, and/or an operating system 110 stored on the memory 104. The modules may be stored in the memory 104 as processor-readable instructions, which when executed by the processor 108 configure the computing device 106 to perform functions that may include some or all of the functions described herein…”)
As per claim 15 Jessen additionally discloses the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions for generating virtual model features, the instructions, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform operations comprising: ([0021] “…Computer-readable media devices include volatile and non-volatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data for execution by one or more processors of a computing device…”, [0022] “As defined herein, computer-readable media does not include transitory media, such as modulated data signals and carrier waves, and/or signals.”)
22. As per claim 2:
Jessen does not disclose, however, Gross, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein modifying the one or more of the plurality of features comprises: determining, by the processor, based at least in part on one or more feature condition rules, a relevancy of the one or more of the plurality of features ([claim 1] “… providing a customizable filtering and scoring interface, which interface can be configured in accordance with a first user definition to select and/or weight individual ones of any or all of said predetermined set of physical features, said individual ones of said predetermined set of physical feature types, and said individual ones of predetermined set of physical feature conditions…”)
excluding, by the processor, the one or more of the plurality of features from the plurality of modified features ([claim 7] “…wherein said curb appeal score can be customized by filtering or selecting individual ones of said first set of physical features.”, [0475] “…Against this expectation value must be weighed the cost of acquiring the tag; including namely, the human coding time (which is a function of the difficulty of identifying the feature, or production rate)+machine coding costs (if tag generation is automated)+various fixed costs (what one must pay for acquiring images for is analysis and the like)…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for applying user-configured rules that select individual physical features, feature types, and feature conditions and determining features that are not relevant is excluded from the customized analysis, so that features failing it are not tagged into the annotated virtual variant (‘934, [claim 1], [claim 7], [0475]).
23. As per claim 3:
Jessen discloses the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein modifying the one or more of the plurality of features comprises: determining, by the processor, a flaw associated with the one or more of the plurality of features ([0083] “…By way of example, the drone 502 may capture a photograph of the physical property and compare it to a pre-stored photograph to determine the presence of, for instance, corrosion, oxidization, mold, etc.”)
Jessen does not disclose, however, Gross, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
excluding, by the processor, the flaw associated with the one or more of the plurality of features from the plurality of modified features ([0098] “Remediation Simulation Logic 175—uses specialized image filtering and other image processing to remediate or simulate visual improvements to building elements in a target structure for the benefit of users;”, [0198] “…In this section the computing system provides a visual simulated version of the homeowner's structure as it could appear if remediated using the products/services proffered in the marketing materials…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for generating a simulated version of the structure in which the determined flaws are remediated — i.e., excluded from the modified (remediated) features presented in the simulated representation (‘934, [0098], [0198]).
24. As per claim 4:
Jessen does not disclose, however, Gross, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein modifying the one or more of the plurality of features comprises emphasizing, by the processor, the one or more of the plurality of features in the plurality of modified features ([0146] “…In addition the user can be provided with additional classifying details about the building structure such as highlighted, tagged or annotated version of the building structure identified in FIG. 7E…”, [0192] “…In this instance both defects and property improvements have been annotated and highlighted…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for generating a highlighted, tagged, and annotated version of the building structure in which selected features are visually emphasized (‘934, [0146], [0192]).
25. As per claim 6:
Jessen does not disclose, however, Gross, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the processor, an assessment of a condition of at least one of the plurality of modified features ([0103] “… The images can also include annotations (see below) identifying structure elements, defects, severity ratings, locations of identified defects, etc. as annotated automatically by a classifier and/or manually by a human operator.”, [claim 1] “…a condition associated with said physical feature; wherein said condition of said physical feature is selected from a predetermined set of physical feature conditions each having a feature condition value within a third range of values…”)
presenting, by the processor, the assessment in the virtual model ([0146] “…This allows the user to quickly see the assessment of the property as performed by Building Classifier Engine 150 and/or human editors.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for generating condition assessments of individual features with feature condition values and severity ratings attached to the identified (and annotated/modified) features and presenting to the user within the highlighted, tagged, or annotated version of the building structure (‘934, [0103], [0146]).
26. As per claim 14:
Jessen does not disclose, however, Gross, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 7, wherein modifying the one or more of the plurality of features is based at least in part on a user input ([claim 1] “…providing a customizable filtering and scoring interface, which interface can be configured in accordance with a first user definition to select and/or weight individual ones of any or all of said predetermined set of physical features, said individual ones of said predetermined set of physical feature types, and said individual ones of predetermined set of physical feature conditions…”, [0103] “…The images can also include annotations (see below) identifying structure elements, defects, severity ratings, locations of identified defects, etc. as annotated automatically by a classifier and/or manually by a human operator.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for selecting features that configured per user definition, and annotations may be made manually by a human operator and the modification is based at least in part on user input (‘934, [claim 1], [0103]).
27. As per claim 16:
Jessen does not disclose, however, Gross, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the plurality of modified features comprises one or more annotations associated with the one or more the plurality of features ([0103] “…The images can also include annotations (see below) identifying structure elements, defects, severity ratings, locations of identified defects, etc. as annotated automatically by a classifier and/or manually by a human operator.”, [0146] “… In addition the user can be provided with additional classifying details about the building structure such as highlighted, tagged or annotated version of the building structure identified in FIG. 7E…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for having that the modified (annotated/highlighted) version of the structure comprises annotations associated with the identified features, for example tags identifying structure elements, defects, severity ratings, and defect locations (‘934, [0103], [0146]).
28. As per claim 18:
Jessen does not disclose, however, Gross, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein excluding the one or more of the plurality of features is based at least in part on a condition of the one or more of the plurality of features ([claim 1] “…providing a customizable filtering and scoring interface, which interface can be configured in accordance with a first user definition to select and/or weight individual ones of any or all of said predetermined set of physical features, said individual ones of said predetermined set of physical feature types, and said individual ones of predetermined set of physical feature conditions…”, [0098] “Remediation Simulation Logic 175—uses specialized image filtering and other image processing to remediate or simulate visual improvements to building elements in a target structure for the benefit of users.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for filtering and selection feature based on physical feature conditions, and the Remediation Simulation Logic removes/replaces building elements precisely because of their flawed condition (‘934, [claim 1], [0098]).
29. As per claim 19:
Jessen does not disclose, however, Gross, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein modifying the one or more of the plurality of features comprises modifying a boundary of at least one of the one or more of the plurality of features in the plurality of modified features of the virtual model ([0166] “A building envelope 702 (FIG. 7B) is identified at step 520 (FIG. 5) by image processing adapted to detect edges of structures…”, [0198] “…The remediation and/or rendering simulation software can take as an input the image file for the structure in question and using conventional image processing techniques imitate the effects of different types of improvements.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for detecting feature edges and altering the remediation simulation the visual appearance of building elements, which may implicate their depicted outlines (‘934, [0166], [0198]).
30. Claims 5, 8-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160314545A1 to Jessen in view of US20160048934A1 to Gross and US20180089763A1 to Okazaki.
31. As per claim 5:
Neither Jessen, nor Gross disclose, however, Okazaki, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the virtual model is based at least in part on determining, by the processor, that the at least one image meets or exceeds an image resolution threshold ([0040] “… The aerial images available at the various databases, for example, may differ in resolution and recency of capture. Through collecting two or more images of a particular property, for example, the system may analyze each image to determine a best quality image for use in condition analysis. The condition analysis can include balancing of multiple factors such as, in some examples, clarity, completeness, and recency.”, [0071] “…an image quality analysis and preparation engine 326 analyzes the acquired image(s) to confirm the acquired image(s) contains an adequately clear and detailed image of the property identified by the property identifier 340…”, [0073] “… if the image quality analysis and preparation engine 326 determines that the acquired image is insufficient, the image quality analysis and preparation engine 326 may request a replacement image from the image acquisition engine 336. For example, the image acquisition engine 336 may obtain images based upon a variety of factors including, in some examples, recency of capture, resolution, cost, and/or applicability to a particular property characteristic analysis…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) and a method for matching aerial image features of one or more properties to corresponding property conditions of Okazaki (‘763, [0009] with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for evaluating candidate images including their resolution, against quality/adequacy criteria, confirming sufficiency before analysis, and rejecting insufficient images in favor of replacements (‘763, [0040], [0071], [0073])
32. As per claim 8:
Jessen does not disclose, however, Gross, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 7, wherein the operations further comprise: generating an assessment of a condition of at least one of the plurality of modified features ([0103] “…The images can also include annotations (see below) identifying structure elements, defects, severity ratings, locations of identified defects, etc. as annotated automatically by a classifier and/or manually by a human operator.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for assessing condition classifications with feature condition values and severity ratings that are generated for the identified (and annotated/modified) features (‘934, [0103]).
Neither Jessen, nor Gross disclose, however, Okazaki, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
calculating a risk score based at least in part on the assessment ([claim 1] “… determining, by the processing circuitry using the property characteristic classification and the condition classification, a risk estimate of damage to the property due to one or more disasters; and…”, [0058] “…The risk estimate 122, in some examples, can include an actuarial percentage indicating a likelihood of damage based upon the particular property characteristics…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) and a method for matching aerial image features of one or more properties to corresponding property conditions of Okazaki (‘763, [0009] with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for calculating a risk estimate including an actuarial percentage likelihood of damage based on the property characteristic classification and the condition classification (‘763, [claim 1], [0058]).
33. As per claim 9:
Neither Jessen, nor Gross disclose, however, Okazaki, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise updating one or more terms of a user policy associated with the physical object based at least in part on the risk score ([0069] “… The premium information, for example, may relate to an insurance policy purchased for the property or parameters for insuring the property (e.g., based upon upgraded or new characteristics). The user, in some embodiments, may be provided to update the premium information via an edit control 828 c.”, [0060] “…For example, the risk estimate 122 may be used in determining whether a property is adequately insured against potential damage…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) and a method for matching aerial image features of one or more properties to corresponding property conditions of Okazaki (‘763, [0009] with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for updating premium information of an insurance policy for the property wherein the risk estimate is used to evaluate the adequacy of the property's insurance (‘763, [0060], [0069]).
34. As per claim 10:
Neither Jessen, nor Gross disclose, however, Okazaki, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise determining whether to approve insuring the physical object based at least in part on the risk score ([0060] “… For example, the risk estimate 122 may be used in determining whether a property is adequately insured against potential damage…”, [0084] “…an insurance carrier client 306 may use risk estimate data in making insurance assessments…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) and a method for matching aerial image features of one or more properties to corresponding property conditions of Okazaki (‘763, [0009] with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for using by the insurance carriers the risk estimate in insurance assessments, including determining adequacy of coverage for the property (‘763, [0060], [0084]).
35. As per claim 12:
Neither Jessen, nor Gross disclose, however, Okazaki, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 7, wherein modifying the one or more of the plurality of features comprises deemphasizing image data associated with at least one of the one or more of the plurality of features in the plurality of modified features of the virtual model ([0049] “… For example, the image may be cropped to include the property of interest, or the property of interest plus a portion of its surroundings (e.g., the lot containing the property and/or a portion of the proximate neighborhood in which the property resides)…”, [0097] “…In a particular example, color images may be converted to grayscale for grayscale image analysis…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) and a method for matching aerial image features of one or more properties to corresponding property conditions of Okazaki (‘763, [0009] with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for removing the image data outside the property of interest by cropping and reducing color information by grayscale conversion (e.g., deemphasizing image data) (‘763, [0049], [0097]).
36. As per claim 13:
Neither Jessen, nor Gross disclose, however, Okazaki, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 7, wherein modifying the one or more of the plurality of features comprises modifying a scale of representation of at least one of the one or more of the plurality of features in the plurality of modified features of the virtual model ([0097] “…In some embodiments, in addition to cropping the image, the image may be resized. For example, depending upon the resolution of the aerial imagery, the image resolution may be reduced, for example, to fit within an X by X pixels square or an X by Y pixels rectangle…”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) and a method for matching aerial image features of one or more properties to corresponding property conditions of Okazaki (‘763, [0009] with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for modifying the scale of representation of the imaged property by resizing (‘763, [0097]).
37. Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160314545A1 to Jessen in view of US20160048934A1 to Gross and US20180158156A1 to Dintenfass.
38. As per claim 11:
Neither Jessen, nor Gross disclose, however, Dintenfass, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The system of claim 7, wherein the operations further comprise: determining records information associated with at least one of the plurality of modified features ([0059] “…The real estate information database 128 is configured to store real estate information, map information, product information, financial product information, repair contractor information, historical property sales information, public records, police records, financial product information (e.g. loan information), tax information, permit information, insurance claims information, property lien information, demographic information, crime information, traffic information, and/or any other information…”, [0109] “In an embodiment, the augmented reality user device 200 determines a cost associated with identified features and damage to the property 150…”)
populating a data records overlay of the virtual model with the records information ([0104] “… In one embodiment, the augmented reality user device 200 presents the historical property information and the comparable property value as virtual objects overlaid with tangible objects in real scene in front of the user 106…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) and an augmented reality system with an augmented reality user device for a use of Dintenfass (‘156, [0009] with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for determining records information (e.g., public records, tax, permit, insurance claims, and lien information for the property), and vendor pricing records for individual features and retrieving records information is populated into virtual objects overlaid on the augmented view containing the features (‘156, [0059], [0104], [0109]).
39. As per claim 17:
Jessen does not disclose, however, Gross, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein modifying the one or more of the plurality of features comprises: determining, based at least in part on one or more feature condition rules, a relevancy of the one or more of the plurality of features ([claim 1] “… providing a customizable filtering and scoring interface, which interface can be configured in accordance with a first user definition to select and/or weight individual ones of any or all of said predetermined set of physical features, said individual ones of said predetermined set of physical feature types, and said individual ones of predetermined set of physical feature conditions…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for applying configured rules that select and/or weight individual physical features, feature types, and feature conditions and determining feature relevancy based at least in part on rules concerning feature conditions (‘934, [claim 1]).
Neither Jessen, nor Gross disclose, however, Dintenfass, as shown, teaches the following limitations:
excluding the one or more of the plurality of features from the plurality of modified features of the virtual model ([0195] “…In an embodiment, the augmented reality user device 200 receives an indication from the user 106 about which alternative features the user 106 wants to include in a property profile 114…”, [0199] “At step 1024, the augmented reality user device 200 determines whether the user 106 wants to modify the property profile 114. For example, the user 106 may want to request another comparable property value using different features and/or other alternative features…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for identifying, assessing, rating and reporting on real estate properties, building structures of Gross (‘934, [0085]) and an augmented reality system with an augmented reality user device for a use of Dintenfass (‘156, [0009] with the teaching of Jessen for collecting, storing, and/or analyzing data received from one or more inputs comprising a property information database (‘545, abstract) for including in the modified feature set only the features indicated for inclusion, excluding the remaining features, and supports iteratively swapping the included features (‘156, [0195], [0199]).
Conclusion
40. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20190171986A1 – Beznos. et al. – Discloses systems, methods, apparatus, computer program code and means for efficiently and accurately mining image data, wherein image input data is received from multiple sources and the received image input data may then be aggregated and mapped to create a set of image input data.
US20150206218A1 – Banerjee et al. – Discloses an apparatus comprising a camera, one or more processors, and a display, wherein the camera is pointed at a real estate property, the one or more processors determine information associated with the real estate property, and determining the information comprises, determining a camera position based on a longitude, a latitude, and an orientation of the camera.
41. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANULLA ABDULLAEV whose telephone number is (571)272-4367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM -4:30PM ET.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMANULLA ABDULLAEV/ Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights