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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the subject matter of claims 27 – 29, 32 – 34, 37 – 39, namely, text boxes, sliders, contralaterally displaying two sets of information, and bar chart.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 25 – 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 25, 30, 35, the Examiner asserts that “…where a subject project or subject property will be built…” renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, the body of the claim bounces between subject project and subject property and renders the claim indefinite because, for example, limitations reciting subject property are based on subject project and, consequently, introduces lack of antecedent issues. Further still, the limitation recites “subject project or subject property”, which results in only one of the options being required to make and use the invention and, accordingly, makes it unclear as to whether certain portions from the body of the claimed invention are required. For example, if a practitioner of the invention chooses subject project, then all limitation pertaining to subject property are not required to be performed and/or result in lack of antecedent basis issues.
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 25 – 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
allow[ing] a user to choose an image from a series of aerial or satellite images of a geographic location according to different dates and times that the aerial or satellite images were taken and then determine a geographic location in latitude and longitude where a subject project or subject property will be built;
allow[ing] a user to input competitive market analysis filters and competitive market analysis thresholds according to a geographic area based on the determined location in latitude and longitude;
after such competitive market analysis filters and competitive market analysis thresholds have been inputted:
providing a first output that ranks results of similar construction projects according to a filtering algorithm which is based on the data inputted in the competitive market analysis filters and competitive market analysis thresholds or a K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) algorithm which identifies similar projects based on the data inputted in the competitive market analysis filters and does not rely on the competitive market analysis thresholds;
providing a second output that graphically shows data representing the similar construction projects of the first output plotted in X-coordinates and Y- coordinates, as well as data entered for the subject project; and
providing a third output that maps the location of the similar construction projects of the first output, as well as the location of the subject project;
allow[ing] a user to input data on a subject property including the determined location in latitude and longitude;
after such data on the subject property has been inputted:
providing a fourth output representing a predicted base price of the subject property;
providing a fifth output that maps the location of the subject property and surrounding properties; and
providing sixth and seventh outputs that each graphically represent and quantify the relative contribution of each variable entered in the inputted data for the subject property in determining the predicted base price of the subject property.
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of real estate valuation, which corresponds to “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations, e.g., allowing a user to visually review and choose from a plurality of map images and mentally pick a particular location within the map image; allowing a user to input parameters based on the chosen map location; using pen and paper and/or mentally review and rank information using K-Nearest Neighbor (mathematical algorithm) to perform a comparison and provide/write/think the results of the analysis based on a rule(s) (i.e. collect and compare information and, based on a rule(s), identify options); write/draw an X-Y graph (mathematical relationship) representing the results of the comparison; write/draw locations on the map identifying a location of interest; allowing a user to input information about a location and its geographical coordinates; write/think of the predicted price of a location based on the results of the comparison; write/draw a map of locations of interest; and write/draw a graph representing relative contributions of variables associated with the determination of a price for a location of interest. The claimed invention is also directed towards the collection and organization of information.
The limitations of:
allow[ing] a user to choose an image from a series of aerial or satellite images of a geographic location according to different dates and times that the aerial or satellite images were taken and then determine a geographic location in latitude and longitude where a subject project or subject property will be built;
allow[ing] a user to input competitive market analysis filters and competitive market analysis thresholds according to a geographic area based on the determined location in latitude and longitude;
after such competitive market analysis filters and competitive market analysis thresholds have been inputted:
providing a first output that ranks results of similar construction projects according to a filtering algorithm which is based on the data inputted in the competitive market analysis filters and competitive market analysis thresholds or a K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) algorithm which identifies similar projects based on the data inputted in the competitive market analysis filters and does not rely on the competitive market analysis thresholds;
providing a second output that graphically shows data representing the similar construction projects of the first output plotted in X-coordinates and Y- coordinates, as well as data entered for the subject project; and
providing a third output that maps the location of the similar construction projects of the first output, as well as the location of the subject project;
allow[ing] a user to input data on a subject property including the determined location in latitude and longitude;
after such data on the subject property has been inputted:
providing a fourth output representing a predicted base price of the subject property;
providing a fifth output that maps the location of the subject property and surrounding properties; and
providing sixth and seventh outputs that each graphically represent and quantify the relative contribution of each variable entered in the inputted data for the subject property in determining the predicted base price of the subject property,
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic graphical user interfaces (GUI’s), generic processor, and generic non-transitory, computer-readable memory storing program instructions for execution by the generic processor. That is, other than reciting generic graphical user interfaces (GUI’s), generic processor, and generic non-transitory, computer-readable memory storing program instructions for execution by the generic processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic graphical user interfaces (GUI’s), generic processor, and generic non-transitory, computer-readable memory storing program instructions for execution by the generic processor in the context of this claim encompasses a user can observe how users are behaving, feeling, and the like during an interaction and use this information in order to determine an intent by comparing previously acquired information with current information, identifying similarities, and determining how the current interaction will most likely play out. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic graphical user interfaces (GUI’s), generic processor, and generic non-transitory, computer-readable memory storing program instructions for execution by the generic processor, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – generic graphical user interfaces (GUI’s), generic processor, and generic non-transitory, computer-readable memory storing program instructions for execution by the generic processor to communicate and display/output information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. collect and compare information and, based on a rule(s), write/draw representations of the result(s) of the comparison(s), e.g., writing/drawing locations on a map, graphs, plots, organized information, and the like. The generic graphical user interfaces (GUI’s), generic processor, and generic non-transitory, computer-readable memory storing program instructions for execution by the generic processor in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic graphical user interfaces (GUI’s), generic processor, and generic non-transitory, computer-readable memory storing program instructions for execution by the generic processor can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of communicating and displaying/outputting information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic graphical user interfaces (GUI’s), generic processor, and generic non-transitory, computer-readable memory storing program instructions for execution by the generic processor are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic graphical user interfaces (GUI’s), generic processor, and generic non-transitory, computer-readable memory storing program instructions for execution by the generic processor.
The Examiner further asserts that the claimed invention does not rise to the same level of CoreWireless because it is not improving GUI technology, but reciting the use of generic GUI technology and merely describing the information presented in the GUI, as well as describing generic GUI elements. Unlike CoreWireless, the claimed invention is directed towards the collection, organization, and displaying of information rather than improving how GUI’s fundamentally function.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic graphical user interfaces (GUI’s), generic processor, and generic non-transitory, computer-readable memory storing program instructions for execution by the generic processor to perform the steps of:
allow[ing] a user to choose an image from a series of aerial or satellite images of a geographic location according to different dates and times that the aerial or satellite images were taken and then determine a geographic location in latitude and longitude where a subject project or subject property will be built;
allow[ing] a user to input competitive market analysis filters and competitive market analysis thresholds according to a geographic area based on the determined location in latitude and longitude;
after such competitive market analysis filters and competitive market analysis thresholds have been inputted:
providing a first output that ranks results of similar construction projects according to a filtering algorithm which is based on the data inputted in the competitive market analysis filters and competitive market analysis thresholds or a K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) algorithm which identifies similar projects based on the data inputted in the competitive market analysis filters and does not rely on the competitive market analysis thresholds;
providing a second output that graphically shows data representing the similar construction projects of the first output plotted in X-coordinates and Y- coordinates, as well as data entered for the subject project; and
providing a third output that maps the location of the similar construction projects of the first output, as well as the location of the subject project;
allow[ing] a user to input data on a subject property including the determined location in latitude and longitude;
after such data on the subject property has been inputted:
providing a fourth output representing a predicted base price of the subject property;
providing a fifth output that maps the location of the subject property and surrounding properties; and
providing sixth and seventh outputs that each graphically represent and quantify the relative contribution of each variable entered in the inputted data for the subject property in determining the predicted base price of the subject property,
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally:
Claim 26 is directed towards reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea to display and select information while describing the information and how it is organized, as well as describing what a user is allowed to do.
Claim 27 is directed towards reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, in this case, text boxes and sliders, as well as describing the information corresponding to the generic GUI elements.
Claim 28 is directed towards describing printed information and how it is organized.
Claim 29 is directed towards describing printed information and how it is organized.
The remaining claims recite subject matter already disclosed above.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for describing how information is organized and conveyed to a user with respect to real estate property. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
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, 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.
Claims 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry et al. (US PGPub 20130151422 A1) in view of Eraker et al. (US PGPub 2005/0288958 A1) in further view of NCES (How to Choose Which Type of Graph to Use).
In regards to claims 25, 30, 35, Berry discloses (Claim 25) a method, comprising; (Claim 30) one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media having instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the instructions programmed to cause the one or more processors to; (Claim 35) a computer or computer system, comprising:
In regards to:
(Claim 35) one or more processors designed to execute instructions; and
(Claim 35) one or more non-transitory, computer-readable memories storing program instructions for execution by the one or more processors, the instructions programmed to cause the one or more processors to:
(Fig. 1A, 1B)
providing a first graphical user interface that allows a user to choose […] a geographic location […] and then determine a geographic location in latitude and longitude where a subject project or subject property will be built (¶ 24 “…property data resources 112 are typically accessed externally for use by the application, since the amount of property data is rather voluminous, and since the application is configured to allow access to any county or local area in a very large geographic area (e.g., for an entire country such as the United States.”
¶ 34 “To further explain by example, a construction company may want to forecast what specific type of construction may render the highest value in predefined markets, such that the company may adjusts the property type selection and building costs to fit the geographic area where the construction, whether new or otherwise, is plan[n]ed.”;
¶ 37 “Additionally, a table or grid of data for the subject properties is concurrently displayable so that the list of comparables can be manipulated, with the indicators on the map image updating accordingly. … Combined with the map view and the neighborhood statistics, this allows for a convenient yet comprehensive interactive analysis of comparable sales.”;
¶ 47 “For example, map image information may be acquired from mapping resources, including but not limited to Google maps and the like, and techniques may be used to depict the subject and comparable properties on the map image, such as through determination of the coordinates from address information. The map imagery may be variously updated to provide desired views, including zooming in and out to provide more narrow or broad perspectives of the depictions of the comparable and subject properties. Additionally, the map imagery is updated to reflect the current display of various geographical features.”);
providing a second graphical user interface that allows a user to input competitive market analysis filters and competitive market analysis thresholds according to a geographic area based on the determined location in latitude and longitude (¶ 20 “The described relates to an ability to dynamically change, add, and remove values for a subject to instantaneously render a subject valuation based those altered values and a given market. … In other words, a subject is evaluated or appraised on the basis of a series of initial 'what if' scenarios. The series of 'what if' scenarios may be a preformed set of conditions that are sequentially applied to a subject or the series may be a user or simulation designated set of alterations.”;
¶ 30 “The rank storage module 207 ranks the final valuation of an altered subject based on calculated to provide a suggestion as to whether a subject's alteration is more desired among properties in a given market. … The rank storage module 207 may also rank the final valuation of an altered subject based on the difference between the final valuation of an altered subject and other final values when additional values exists, such a that a specific alteration may be judged against other specific alterations in a given market.”;
¶ 34 “To further explain by example, a construction company may want to forecast what specific type of construction may render the highest value in predefined markets, such that the company may adjusts the property type selection and building costs to fit the geographic area where the construction, whether new or otherwise, is plan[n]ed.”;
¶ 43 “In plain terms, receiving 301 by the application initiates the 'what if' sequences described above. That is, although inputting different data will render a different answer, the described application itemizes how to specifically account for what data is being changed and how that data affects a property in a given market.”;
¶ 45 “The application ranks 305 the reappraisals based on the difference between the reappraisals and a subject's original value to show which alteration increases or decreases a subject's value in a given market. Further, the application may rank the reappraisals based on cost estimates associated with the alteration. For example, in a given market, finishing a basement in a one bathroom home may cost $5,000 while raising the value of a subject by $10,000; transforming an extra closet into a half bathroom in the same home may cost $400 while raising the value of a subject by $4,000. The application may rank the half bathroom alteration higher than the finished basement because the relative increase to the home based on the cost invested is greater for the half bathroom.”;
¶ 53 “The boundaries of the defined geographic area may be retained in the map image rendering for appreciation that the comparables are within the desired neighborhood.”);
In regards to:
after such competitive market analysis filters and competitive market analysis thresholds have been inputted:
providing a first output that ranks results of similar construction projects according to a filtering algorithm which is based on the data inputted in the competitive market analysis filters and competitive market analysis thresholds or a K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) algorithm which identifies similar projects based on the data inputted in the competitive market analysis filters and does not rely on the competitive market analysis thresholds;
providing a second output that […] shows data representing the similar construction projects of the first output […], as well as data entered for the subject project; and
providing a third output that maps the location of the similar construction projects of the first output, as well as the location of the subject project
(¶ 20 “The described relates to an ability to dynamically change, add, and remove values for a subject to instantaneously render a subject valuation based those altered values and a given market. … In other words, a subject is evaluated or appraised on the basis of a series of initial 'what if' scenarios. The series of 'what if' scenarios may be a preformed set of conditions that are sequentially applied to a subject or the series may be a user or simulation designated set of alterations.”;
¶ 23 “In this embodiment, the alteration and ranking application 110 and the comparable selection model 120 are separate functions; however, the comparable selection model 120 may also be integrated into the alteration and ranking application 110, as depicted by the comparable selection models 118a-c in FIG. 1A.”
¶ 25 “The application accesses and retrieves the property data from these resources in support of dynamically changing values for the subject, instantaneous subject valuation, providing alterable data points, modeling of comparable properties as well as the rendering of map images of subject properties and corresponding comparable properties, and the display of supportive data (e.g., in grid form) in association with the map images.”;
¶ 27 “perform operations of receiving an input that alters one or more property characteristics for a subject, determining a ranked listing of comparable properties for the subject in a given geographical area by the comparable selection model based on the input, and performing a valuation on a subject based on the ranked listing to render a value for the subject. Further, determining a ranked listing in a given geographical area by the comparable selection model includes accessing property data corresponding to a geographic area, and performing a regression based upon the property data, with the regression modeling the relationship between price and explanatory variables. The application also includes program code for displaying (whether through a web browser, mobile application, or other relative interface) a map image corresponding to the geographic area, indicators on the map image indicative of the subject property and at least one of the plurality of comparable properties, as well as ranking the subject alterations, and a text listing of the plurality of comparable properties according to the ranking. Finally, the application is configured to receive other inputs indicating selection of comparable properties and to update the map images and indicators as described.”;
¶ 28 “The application 200A is configured to provide the subject valuation based on real-time property characteristic alterations using a comparable selection model's 208 functionality.”;
¶ 30 “The rank storage module 207 ranks the final valuation of an altered subject based on calculated to provide a suggestion as to whether a subject's alteration is more desired among properties in a given market. … The rank storage module 207 may also rank the final valuation of an altered subject based on the difference between the final valuation of an altered subject and other final values when additional values exists, such a that a specific alteration may be judged against other specific alterations in a given market.”;
¶ 34 “To further explain by example, a construction company may want to forecast what specific type of construction may render the highest value in predefined markets, such that the company may adjusts the property type selection and building costs to fit the geographic area where the construction, whether new or otherwise, is plan[n]ed.”);
providing a third graphical user interface that allows a user to input data on a subject property including the determined location in latitude and longitude (¶ 34 “To further explain by example, a construction company may want to forecast what specific type of construction may render the highest value in predefined markets, such that the company may adjusts the property type selection and building costs to fit the geographic area where the construction, whether new or otherwise, is plan[n]ed.”;
¶ 47 “For example, map image information may be acquired from mapping resources, including but not limited to Google maps and the like, and techniques may be used to depict the subject and comparable properties on the map image, such as through determination of the coordinates from address information. The map imagery may be variously updated to provide desired views, including zooming in and out to provide more narrow or broad perspectives of the depictions of the comparable and subject properties. Additionally, the map imagery is updated to reflect the current display of various geographical features”;
¶ 51 “The process 400 entails determining 402 the neighborhood filtering criteria. Next, a map image is displayed 404 and necessary input is obtained to define the geographic area (using for example the web interface and display module 211 in the case of FIG. 2B). There are different modes that may be employed when selecting a geographic area. In a Tract mode, when selection or other identification of the subject property performed, the contiguous tracts (predefined groups based on census information) define the geographic area. In a Distance mode, the subject property and desired distance define the geographic area. In a map mode, the map image is manipulated (if desired) and then upon indication the geographic area is set as the currently-displayed geographic area. A Carve In and Carve Out mode entails interfacing with the user to receive indications to define the shape that in tum defines the geographic area. This may be a manual stringing of segments to define a shape such as a polygon that forms a perimeter of the defined geographic area. Alternatively, a shape tool allows the user to overlay and then resize and manipulate the shape to configure it as desired, so as to match it to whatever the user deems to be the appropriate neighborhood. Automated assistance may also be provided, wherein the application identifies and then suggests a possible boundary of the shape, such as a major road, body of water or the like.”;
¶ 52 “Once the defined geographic area is established, the comparable selection model is applied 406 to corresponding property data for properties designated by the defined geographic area (whether by inclusion, as with Map, Tract, Distance, or Carve In modes, or exclusion as with Carve Out mode).”);
In regards to:
after such data on the subject property has been inputted:
providing a fourth output representing a predicted base price of the subject property (¶ 20 “The described relates to an ability to dynamically change, add, and remove values for a subject to instantaneously render a subject valuation based those altered values and a given market. In other words, a subject is evaluated or appraised on the basis of a series of initial 'what if' scenarios. The series of 'what if' scenarios may be a preformed set of conditions that are sequentially applied to a subject or the series may be a user or simulation designated set of alterations.”;
¶ 25 “The application accesses and retrieves the property data from these resources in support of dynamically changing values for the subject, instantaneous subject valuation, providing alterable data points, modeling of comparable properties as well as the rendering of map images of subject properties and corresponding comparable properties, and the display of supportive data (e.g., in grid form) in association with the map images.”;
¶ 28 “The application 200A is configured to provide the subject valuation based on real-time property characteristic alterations using a comparable selection model's 208 functionality.”;
¶ 30 “Further, the value comparison module 206 calculates a difference between the final valuation of an altered subject and the original value of the subject (prior to altering). The rank storage module 207 ranks the final valuation of an altered subject based on calculated to provide a suggestion as to whether a subject's alteration is more desired among properties in a given market. The rank storage module 207 may also rank the final valuation of an altered subject based on the difference between the final valuation of an altered subject and other final values when additional values exists, such a that a specific alteration may be judged against other specific alterations in a given market”;
¶ 34 “To further explain by example, a construction company may want to forecast what specific type of construction may render the highest value in predefined markets, such that the company may adjusts the property type selection and building costs to fit the geographic area where the construction, whether new or otherwise, is plan[n]ed.”;
¶ 37 “The grid/table view allows the user to sort the list of comparables on rank, value, size, age, or any other dimension. Additionally, the rows in the table are connected to the full database entry as well as sale history for the respective property.”;
¶ 45 “The application ranks 305 the reappraisals based on the difference between the reappraisals and a subject's original value to show which alteration increases or decreases a subject's value in a given market. Further, the application may rank the reappraisals based on cost estimates associated with the alteration. For example, in a given market, finishing a basement in a one bathroom home may cost $5,000 while raising the value of a subject by $10,000; transforming an extra closet into a half bathroom in the same home may cost $400 while raising the value of a subject by $4,000. The application may rank the half bathroom alteration higher than the finished basement because the relative increase to the home based on the cost invested is greater for the half bathroom. Thus, the application continuously reappraises and stores those reappraisals, such that the best 'what if' from a series of 'what if' may be readily identified. For instance, the application when given a sequence of scenarios (such as 1. what if we knock the house down and rebuild, 2. what if we add another flood, 3. what if we install an in-ground pool, and 4. 'what if the appraiser entered the wrong data initially) will reappraises, stores those reappraisals, and rank the reappraisals based on a set of defined conditions.”);
providing a fifth output that maps the location of the subject property and surrounding properties (¶ 27 “perform operations of receiving an input that alters one or more property characteristics for a subject, determining a ranked listing of comparable properties for the subject in a given geographical area by the comparable selection model based on the input, and performing a valuation on a subject based on the ranked listing to render a value for the subject. Further, determining a ranked listing in a given geographical area by the comparable selection model includes accessing property data corresponding to a geographic area, and performing a regression based upon the property data, with the regression modeling the relationship between price and explanatory variables. The application also includes program code for displaying (whether through a web browser, mobile application, or other relative interface) a map image corresponding to the geographic area, indicators on the map image indicative of the subject property and at least one of the plurality of comparable properties, as well as ranking the subject alterations, and a text listing of the plurality of comparable properties according to the ranking. Finally, the application is configured to receive other inputs indicating selection of comparable properties and to update the map images and indicators as described.”;
¶ 36 “Mapping features allow the subject property and comparable properties to be concurrently displayed (and geographic regions to be selected using the customized neighborhood module 205). For example, mapping features include the capability to display the boundaries of census units, school attendance zones, neighborhoods, as well as statistical information such as median home values, average home age, etc. The mapping features also accommodate the illustration of geographical features of interest along comparable properties, offering visual depiction of properties that border the feature.”;
¶ 37 “Additionally, a table or grid of data for the subject properties is concurrently displayable so that the list of comparables can be manipulated, with the indicators on the map image updating accordingly. … Combined with the map view and the neighborhood statistics, this allows for a convenient yet comprehensive interactive analysis of comparable sales.”;
¶ 47 “For example, map image information may be acquired from mapping resources, including but not limited to Google maps and the like, and techniques may be used to depict the subject and comparable properties on the map image, such as through determination of the coordinates from address information. The map imagery may be variously updated to provide desired views, including zooming in and out to provide more narrow or broad perspectives of the depictions of the comparable and subject properties. Additionally, the map imagery is updated to reflect the current display of various geographical features.”); and
providing sixth and seventh outputs that each […] represent and quantify the relative contribution of each variable entered in the inputted data for the subject property in determining the predicted base price of the subject property (¶ 31 “The comparable selection model 208 is configured for carrying out a regression upon the accessed property data and producing corresponding results, such as comparable property selection through the determination of regression coefficients and other data appropriate to a subject property.”;
¶ 45 “The application ranks 305 the reappraisals based on the difference between the reappraisals and a subject's original value to show which alteration increases or decreases a subject's value in a given market. Further, the application may rank the reappraisals based on cost estimates associated with the alteration. For example, in a given market, finishing a basement in a one bathroom home may cost $5,000 while raising the value of a subject by $10,000; transforming an extra closet into a half bathroom in the same home may cost $400 while raising the value of a subject by $4,000. The application may rank the half bathroom alteration higher than the finished basement because the relative increase to the home based on the cost invested is greater for the half bathroom.”;`
¶ 49 “In addition, property alteration suggestions made be provided 307 by the application based on property data resources (such as a catalogue for home improvement cost estimates). That is, the application may provide 307 suggestions based on the cost/benefit rankings, such as adding another floor to a home, altering the landscape of a property, etc. and homeowners, construction companies, and investors”;
¶ 54 “FIG. 5 is a flow diagram illustrating an example of a comparable selection process. Specifically, FIG. 5 is a flow diagram illustrating an example of a comparable selection process 500, where a comparable selection model is used to select the properties based on a chosen subject. Further, the comparable selection model selects the best comparable sales for a property using transaction level data and property characteristics. Furthermore, the described application uses a comparable selection model to value the subject or altered subject based on the best comparable sales for a property. For example, for each given alteration as described above, the model gauges through a regression calculation a new set of comparable properties along the dimensions of (i) comparable selection/comparable weighting, (ii) comparable adjustment, and (ii) final valuation from variables produced from the property data resources 112.”;
¶ 56 “Next, selecting set of comparable properties along the dimensions of (i) comparable selection/comparable weighting, (ii) comparable adjustment, and (ii) final valuation will be described. When evaluating comparable properties under the comparable selection category, the comparable selection model renders a score based on how well comparable sales compare to the altered subject in categories that drive the value of properties (i.e. explanatory variables). The explanatory variables may include rank ordering, distance from subject, age of comparable sale, and price distribution. Further, explanatory variables may include the property characteristics of gross living area, lot size, property age, number of bathrooms, number of bedrooms, geographical features of interest, maintenance conditions, waste removal systems, climate control systems, and parking availability.”;
¶ 57 “When evaluating comparable properties based on weighting comparables the comparable selection model weighs comparables more heavily when the comparables more closely match an original or a new valuation of the subject. That is, based on A) a weighting of each comparable and on how closely each comparable matches the original valuation and B) a weighting of each comparable and on how closely each comparable matches the new valuation, a weighting is calculated for each comparable property and scores are assigned accordingly.”).
Berry discloses a system and method for allowing a user to valuate a subject property, e.g., new construction, by identifying and providing information on comparable properties within a geographic region. Berry discloses that the system and method utilizes and provides map images, such as, but not limited to Google maps and the like. Although one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have known that Google maps provide aerial or satellite images, Berry does not explicitly recite this. Additionally, although Berry discloses that historical information is utilized by the system and method, Berry fails to explicitly disclose that the map images corresponding to different dates and times.
To be more specific, Berry fails to explicitly disclose:
providing a first graphical user interface that allows a user to choose an image from a series of aerial or satellite images of a geographic location according to different dates and times that the aerial or satellite images were taken and then determine a geographic location in latitude and longitude where a subject project or subject property will be built.
However, Eraker, which is also directed towards evaluating real estate properties, further teaches that it is notoriously old and well-known in the art for maps to be provided as aerial or satellite images. Further still, Eraker teaches that it would have been obvious to tie date and times with the map images because this allows a user to view relevant information to allow them to better assess and understand the value of real estate in a given region. That is to say, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine and predict the value of the property based how it has been performing in the past.
(For support see: ¶ 10, 11, 119)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of aerial or satellite map images, as taught by Eraker, for the generic recitation of map images, such as, but not limited to, Google maps and the like, as disclosed by Berry.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that how the map is represented is a matter of aesthetic design choice when all of the available relevant information that affects the value of a geographic region is known and provided and, consequently, whether aerial/satellite or non-aerial/satellite map images are used, the same predictable result would still be achieved.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the real estate property valuation system and method of Berry with the ability to allow a user to select date and times and provide corresponding map images, as taught by Eraker, because it would provide valuable insight to a user regarding the performance of a geographic region with concerns to its value.
The combination of Berry and Eraker discloses a system and method for providing tools to a user to valuate a real estate property and its comparables and that this information can be presented a plurality of different ways. Despite this, the combination of Berry and Eraker fails to explicitly disclose all possible ways of how information can be represented as.
To be more specific, the combination of Berry and Eraker fails to explicitly disclose:
providing a second output that graphically shows data representing the similar construction projects of the first output plotted in X-coordinates and Y- coordinates, as well as data entered for the subject project; and
providing sixth and seventh outputs that each graphically represent and quantify the relative contribution of each variable entered in the inputted data for the subject property in determining the predicted base price of the subject property.
However, NCES teaches that there are finite number of different techniques to represent information and that each technique has its corresponding advantages and uses. NCES teaches:
“HOW TO CHOOSE WHICH TYPE OF GRAPH TO USE?
When to Use ...
... a Line graph.
Line graphs are used to track changes over short and long periods of time. When smaller changes exist, line graphs are better to use than bar graphs. Line graphs can also be sued to compare changes over the same period of time for more than one group.
... a Pie Chart.
Pie charts are best to use when you are trying to compare parts of a whole. They do not show changes over time.
... a Bar Graph.
Bar graphs are used to compare things between different groups or to track changes over time. However, when trying to measure change over time, bar graphs are best when the changes are larger.
... an Area Graph.
Area graphs are very similar to line graphs. They can be used to track changes over time for one or more groups. Area graphs are good to use when you are tracking the changes in two or more related groups that make up one whole category (for example public and private groups).
... an X-Y Plot.
X-Y plots are used to determine relationships between the two different things. The x-axis is used to measure one event (or variable) and the y-axis is used to measure the other. If both variables increase at the same time, they have a positive relationship. If one variable decreases while the other increases, they have a negative relationship. Sometimes the variables don't follow any pattern and have no relationship.”
(See: Page 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art, to pick an X-Y plot, as taught by NCES, and incorporate it into the real estate valuation system and method that provides information of how different real estate properties and their respective characteristics compare with one another of the combination of McLain, Cutler, Hughes, and Allen since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (how to display information to a user) to the recognized need (providing information to a user) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (the advantages and purposes are known).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of an X-Y plot, as taught by NCES, for the various other representation types (table, images, list, etc.), as disclosed by the combination of Berry and Eraker.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In regards to claims 26, 31, 36, the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES discloses the method of claim 25 (the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 30; the computer or computer system of claim 35), wherein the first graphical user interface includes a display of a timeline that displays dates and times that each image was taken next to a selectable icon that allows the image to be chosen (Eraker – ¶ ¶ 10, 11, 119 wherein a graphical user interface (GUI) is provided to allow the user to select and be provided with images corresponding to dates and times
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the real estate property valuation system and method of Berry with the ability to allow a user to select date and times and provide corresponding map images, as taught by Eraker, because it would provide valuable insight to a user regarding the performance of a geographic region with concerns to its value.).
In regards to claims 29, 34, 39, the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES discloses the method of claim 25 (the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 30; the computer or computer system of claim 35), wherein the sixth output comprises a bar chart and the seventh output comprises a plot (NCES – Page 1 “Line graphs are used to track changes over short and long periods of time. When smaller changes exist, line graphs are better to use than bar graphs. Line graphs can also be sued to compare changes over the same period of time for more than one group.; Area graphs are very similar to line graphs. They can be used to track changes over time for one or more groups. Area graphs are good to use when you are tracking the changes in two or more related groups that make up one whole category (for example public and private groups).; X-Y plots are used to determine relationships between the two different things. The x-axis is used to measure one event (or variable) and the y-axis is used to measure the other. If both variables increase at the same time, they have a positive relationship. If one variable decreases while the other increases, they have a negative relationship. Sometimes the variables don't follow any pattern and have no relationship.; Bar graphs are used to compare things between different groups or to track changes over time. However, when trying to measure change over time, bar graphs are best when the changes are larger.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art, to pick bar chart and a plot, as taught by NCES, and incorporate it into the real estate valuation system and method that provides information of how different real estate properties and their respective characteristics compare with one another of the combination of McLain, Cutler, Hughes, and Allen since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (how to display information to a user) to the recognized need (providing information to a user) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (the advantages and purposes are known).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of an X-Y plot, as taught by NCES, for the various other representation types (table, images, list, etc.), as disclosed by the combination of Berry and Eraker.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.).
Finally, although patentable weight was given to how the information is displayed/represented, the Examiner asserts that this was done for the purposes of compact prosecution. The Examiner asserts that the instant limitation is directed towards describing printed (displayed) matter and, more specifically, how a practitioner desires to represent information, i.e. aesthetic design choice. The Examiner asserts that the specification does not provide support on the criticality that the manner in which the information is displayed affects the result of the claimed invention or to practice the claimed invention, other than simply describing a desired display/representation of information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any well-known type of visual representation that they believe, in their opinion, is the best aesthetic design choice or option for conveying information to a user. (See MPEP § 2111.04, 2111.05, 2144.04)
______________________________________________________________________
Claims 27, 32, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry et al. (US PGPub 20130151422 A1) in view of Eraker et al. (US PGPub 2005/0288958 A1) in view of NCES (How to Choose Which Type of Graph to Use) in further view of Stack Exchange Forum (When to use a slider versus and input field for indicating a value).
In regards to claims 27, 32, 37, the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES discloses a system and method of providing a user with a graphical user interface (GUI) with GUI elements to allow the user to interact with the GUI and provide input and corresponding outputs. Despite this, the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES fails to disclose all possible types of GUI elements, i.e. text boxes and sliders, that can be used or when to use them (NOTE: Eraker – Fig. 10 – 15 discloses wide range of GUI elements, which include, but are not limited to, sliders and text boxes, thereby establishing that they are notoriously old and well-known GUI elements).
To be more specific, the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES fails to explicitly disclose:
the method of claim 25 (the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 30; the computer or computer system of claim 35), wherein the second graphical user interface comprises text boxes for input of the competitive market analysis filters and sliders for input of the competitive market analysis thresholds.
However, Stack Exchange teaches:
“When to use Slider instead of an input field:
1. When you want to take input in touch devices.
Since sliders can be given input by touch, It doesn't have to open keyboard in mobile. Also it becomes faster to input in mobile devices.
2. When you have start & end points
All sliders have starting and ending point which show the broadness of value user can input.
3. When user can skip in between values
In some cases, user feels good to enter approximate values. For example in ratings, user don't prefer to put 3.45 out of 5. While in case of brightness or volume control, user don't even need the values”
“First, I would point out that a designer often has the option to implement both. And it also depends on the user, the interface, the environment, the context, etc. It is rarely one or the other. If it is one vs the other ...
Input might be more appropriate when:
• the user has a specific value in mind that they want to enter and the interface in not touch centric.
• the input data might be more accurate when requesting a user to explicitly type in the value (or reflecting objective data vs subjective. i.e. Weight vs Rating)
A slider is more appropriate when:
• a set range of values exists
• finding a range will require toggling (the user does not know the value beforehand)
• approximate value is sufficient
• touch screen interface where it might be faster to use slider than input via keyboard
But seriously, it depends.”
“A slider vs a number input, the slider gives the user more convenience, the input gives the user more precision.
A slider has predefined limitations. For example a min and max value, they have threshold (you might just let the user select numbers from 10 to 10). This limitations are clear in a slider, but would be strange in an input.
An input however, let's the user specify the exact number, it gives more control without the former limitations.
So it is good to choose a slider when there are certain limitations because they can be easily understood. When there aren't this kind of limitations both can give the same functionality but an input is more precise (imagine selecting an specific number, let's say 682, in a range of 0-1000 in a small slider with a mouse or with a touch device).”
(See: Pages 1 – 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art, to pick a slider and text box, as taught by Stack Exchange, and incorporate it into the GUI based real-estate search and valuation system and method of the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (GUI elements) to the recognized need (providing GUI elements to allow a user to interact with a GUI) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (the advantages and benefits are known).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of sliders and text boxes, as taught by Stack Exchange, for a plurality of other well-known GUI element types, as disclosed by the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Finally, the Examiner asserts that although patentable weight was given to how a user inputs information into a GUI or how they interact with a GUI, this was done for the purposes of compact prosecution. The Examiner asserts that the specification does not provide support on the criticality that the manner in which a user interacts or inputs information into a GUI affects the result of the claimed invention or to practice the claimed invention, other than simply describing a desired input type. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that this is a manner of design choice as the specification provides no disclosure establishing the criticality that some information must be inputted as a slider and other information must be inputted as a text box, otherwise different end results would be produced, again, other then how the input is intended to be received as. (See MPEP § 2111.04, 2144.04)
______________________________________________________________________
Claims 28, 33, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry et al. (US PGPub 20130151422 A1) in view of Eraker et al. (US PGPub 2005/0288958 A1) in view of NCES (How to Choose Which Type of Graph to Use) in further view of Innovative Speech (Using a Split Screen to Master Your Workflow).
In regards to claims 28, 33, 38, the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES discloses a system and method for valuating and studying real estate properties. Although the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES discloses that information can be concurrently displayed to allow a user to compare information, the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES fails to explicitly disclose utilizing contralateral display techniques.
To be more specific, the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES fails to explicitly disclose:
the method of claim 25 (the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 30; the computer or computer system of claim 35), wherein the first output comprises two contralaterally disposed tables, the second output comprises two contralaterally disposed graphs, and the third output comprises two contralaterally disposed maps.
However, the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES teaches:
“Are you interested in learning a simple trick to help organize your online workspace and become a productivity whiz? If so, read on to learn all about how the split screen feature on your device can help you do just that! Using a split screen, which is a tool that allows you to view more than one window or application at a time, can help you manage it all more quickly and efficiently. It's a display technique that typically involves the display of 2 or 4 rectangular areas at the same time.
Still wondering why you should learn to use split screen?
You may be thinking that you already know how to resize your windows on your computer, there's no need to make it more complicated. But resizing your windows is time-consuming, and your time is valuable! Using split screen automates the process and helps cut down on switching between tabs and applications, which can be confusing and lead to mistakes.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the concurrent displaying of information in the system and method of the combination of Berry, Eraker, and NCES with the ability to display information contralaterally, as taught by Innovative Speech, as this allows a user to more easily view two sets of information side by side simultaneously, manage information more quickly and efficiently, and prevent confusion and mistakes.
Finally, although patentable weight was given to how the information is displayed/represented, the Examiner asserts that this was done for the purposes of compact prosecution. The Examiner asserts that the instant limitation is directed towards describing printed (displayed) matter and, more specifically, how a practitioner desires to represent information, i.e. aesthetic design choice. The Examiner asserts that the specification does not provide support on the criticality that the manner in which the information is displayed affects the result of the claimed invention or to practice the claimed invention, other than simply describing a desired display/representation of information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any well-known type of visual representation that they believe, in their opinion, is the best aesthetic design choice or option for conveying information to a user. (See MPEP § 2111.04, 2111.05, 2144.04)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Said et al. (US PGPub 20200134677 A1) – discloses a system and method for training an MLA to create a MLM to predict the value of a subject real estate property based on how its characteristics (i.e. features) compare with other similar subject real estate properties (i.e. comparables/comps). Said further teaches that the MLA weighs various characteristics to determine how much they should contribute to the calculation and determination of a subject property’s predicted price.
Lookabaugh (WO 2019/113397 A1) – teaches that there is a wide range of data that can be used to train a machine learning model that has been trained to determine the value of a property based, at least, how it compares against other similar existing properties as this would aid in creating a new property record for the property. Lookabaugh teaches that other data that can be used can include, but is not limited to, the lot area and number of baths, just to name a few. Further, Lookabaugh teaches that, once the training data is created, the model can be trained using K-nearest neighbor and random forest and that these and many other techniques can be added or substituted with one another and still achieve the same predictable results of estimating the value of a property based on, at least, how it compares against comparable properties.
Turner and Son Homes (How Your Home Builder Affects the Price of Your Custom Home) – discusses factors that can affect the value of a home, further teaches that it is well-known in the art that a builder can affect the value of a home. Turner teaches there are various key elements that affect the cost to build a home, e.g., location, house plan, and feature/amenities. However, Turner further teaches that a builder can also affect the cost of a home. Turner teaches that some builders command a higher profit margin, others have a lower price due to better organization and efficiency, others employ the WAG method (“Wild A__ Guess”) or more precise estimating method to take all costs into account, and some builders have warranty and quality concerns.
Sun et al. (US PGPub 2018/0096420 A1) – is directed towards valuating a real estate property, further teaches that the features types discussed above are not only old and well-known feature types, but that many other feature types exist and can affect the valuation of a real estate property. Specifically, Sun teaches that lot area, number of bids, number of baths, number of floors, garage size, lot size, square footage, and etc. are old and well-known feature types that can be considered for determining the value of a real estate property.
Trandal et al. (US Patent 8,219,558 B1); Abdallah et al. (US PGPub 2022/0092621 A1); Yerli (US PGPub 2020/0402187 A1); McDaniel et al. (US PGPub 2014/0058961 A1); Rankin et al. (US PGPub 2011/0289010 A1); Abdallah et al. (WO 2022/061064 A1); Anonymous (6 tips for Appraising New Construction Homes) – which disclose various systems and methods for real estate valuation and comparison
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 6/2/2026
Prosecution Insights