DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a non-final action in reply to the application filed on June 28, 2025.
Claims 1-36 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-36 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 1 recites “(ii) at least one client agent profile record including client agent personal information comprising open-access engagement tools and an anonymized data tracking code, client agent professional information, and client agent licensing information” Examiner is not clear that the client agent profile comprises the open-access engagement tools and an anonymized data tracking code, when Applicant’s specification clearly describes that the client profile comprises the open-access engagement tools and an anonymized data tracking code as shown at least in paragraphs 0048, 0333 and 0379. Appropriate correction is required. The claims were examined as best understood. Examiner notes that independents claims 13 and 25 describes that the client profile comprises the open-access engagement tools and an anonymized data tracking code.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the client interest information". Claims 2, 14 and 26 recites “the transaction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Per MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter [R-07.2022]. Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, claims 1-24 falls within statutory class of a process and claims 25-26 falls within statutory class of a machine. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, per MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022]. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
Claim 1:
(a) providing a system application server including a memory for storing processor instructions and a processor for executing the processor instructions;
(b) providing a system session server, in communication with the system application server, the system session server configured to establish and maintain a system session with at least one user and generate at least one user interface accessible by the at least one user;
(c) providing a user profile database, in communication with the system application server, the user profile database including (i) at least one client profile record including client personal information and client information, and (ii) at least one client agent profile record including client agent personal information comprising open-access engagement tools and an anonymized data tracking code, client agent professional information, and client agent licensing information;
(d) matching, via the system application server, a first client associated with a first client profile record to a first client agent associated with a first client agent profile record based on (i) at least one of the client personal information and the client interest information, and (ii) at least one of the client agent personal information, client agent professional information and client agent licensing information of the first client agent;
(e) notifying the first client, via the system session server generating a client user interface, of a proposed client agent match with the first client agent;
(f) receiving, via the client user interface, a first client response to a first client agent notification;
(g) updating, via the system application server to the user profile database, the first client profile record with the first client response; and
(h) displaying, via the system session server at the client user interface, the first client response regarding the proposed client agent match with the first client agent.
Claim 13:
(a) providing a system application server including a memory for storing processor instructions and a processor for executing the processor instructions;
(b) providing a system session server, in communication with the system application server, the system session server configured to establish and maintain a system session with at least one user and generate at least one user interface accessible by the at least one user;
(c) providing a user profile database, in communication with the system application server, the user profile database including (i) at least one client profile record including personal information comprising open-access engagement tools and an anonymized data tracking code and information of the client, and (ii) at least one client agent profile record including personal, professional and licensing information of the client agent;
(d) matching, via the system application server, a first client associated with a first client profile record to a first client agent associated with a first client agent profile record based on (i) at least one of personal information and client interest information of the first client, and (ii) at least one of first client agent personal information, first client agent professional information and first client agent licensing information;
(e) notifying the first client, via the system session server generating a client user interface, of a first proposed client agent match with the first client agent;
(f) receiving, via the client user interface, a first client rejection response to a first client agent notification of a proposed client agent match with the first client agent;
(g) updating, via the system application server to the user profile database, the first client profile record with first client response information;
(h) displaying, via the system session server at the client user interface, the first client response information regarding the proposed client agent match with the first client agent;
(i) matching, via the system application server, the first client associated with the first client profile record to a second client agent associated with a second client agent profile record based on (i) at least one of personal information and client interest information of the first client, and (ii) at least one of second client agent personal information, second client agent professional information and second client agent licensing information;
(j) notifying the first client, via the system session server generating the client user interface, of a second proposed client agent match with the second client agent;
(k) receiving, via the client user interface, a subsequent first client response to a second client agent notification;
(l) updating, via the system application server to the user profile database, the first client profile record with second client response information; and(m) displaying, via the system session server at the client user interface, the second client response information regarding the second proposed client agent match with the second client agent..
Claim 25:
(a) a system application server including a memory for storing processor instructions and a processor for executing the processor instructions which when executed are configured to at least one of communicate with and control;
(i) a system session server configured to establish and maintain a system session with at least one user and generate at least one user interface accessible by the at least one user; and
(ii) a user profile database configured to store and update user profile records including a client profile record including (1) at least one client profile record including client personal information comprising open-access engagement tools and an anonymized data tracking code and client interest information, and (2) at least one client agent profile record including client agent personal information, client agent professional information and client agent licensing information;
(b) the system configured to:
(i) match a first client associated with a first client profile record to a first client agent associated with a first client agent profile record based on (1) at least one of personal information and client interest information of the first client, and (2) at least one of personal, professional and licensing information of the first client agent;
(ii) notify the client on a client user interface of a proposed client agent match with the first client agent;
(iii) receive, via the client user interface, a first client response to a first client agent notification;
(iv) update, to the user profile database, the first client profile record with first client response information; and
(v) display at the client user interface first client response information regarding the proposed client agent match with the first client agent.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The memory, processor, user interface and user profile database is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computing and processing system. This system application server comprising a processor and memory, user interface and a database is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing devices each comprising at least a processor, memory and display device. Further, processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022] is directed to Step 2B. Therein, per Step 2B the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of a memory, processor, user interface and user profile database. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing all the steps/functions by a user/service subsystem is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic memory, processor, user interface and user profile database type structure at paragraphs 0402: “ These computer program instructions may be provided to the processor of a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.” Paragraph 0400: “The computing device may typically include a variety of computer system readable media. Such media could be chosen from any available media that is accessible by the computing device, including non-transitory, volatile and non-volatile media, removable and non-removable media. The system memory could include random access memory (RAM) and/or a cache memory.” And paragraph 0177: “1. User Database: The User Database stores user-specific information using Relational or NoSQL databases.” See also figure 51.
Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims 2-12, 14-24 and 26-36 do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2, 14 and 26 further limit the abstract idea that the transaction is a real estate transaction (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3, 15 and 27 further limit the abstract idea that is applied to an engagement platform that is selected from the group consisting of customer engagement platforms, student engagement platforms, donor engagement platforms, buyer engagement platforms, employee engagement platforms, community engagement platforms, sales engagement platforms, and real estate engagement platforms (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4, 16 and 28 further limit the abstract idea that is applied to an engagement platform and the method further comprises generating client structured engagement data from client interest information and using it with the client agent and/or an Al agent (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5, 17 and 29 further limit the abstract idea that the client structured engagement data is generated before the client provides the client's identification information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6, 18 and 30 further limit the abstract idea that the client interest information comprises client buyer property information including client buyer target property criteria (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7, 19 and 31 further limit the abstract idea that he client interest information comprises client seller property information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 8 and 32 further limit the abstract idea that the client agent personal information includes at least one of client agent type information, client agent property type information, client agent specialties information, client agent region served information, and client agent languages information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 9 and 33 further limit the abstract idea that the client agent professional information includes at least one of client agent broker information, client agent social media information, client agent social media ranking information, and client agent number of transaction per a period of time information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 10 and 34 further limit the abstract idea that the client agent licensing information includes at least one of client agent license state, client agent license number, and client agent license year information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 11 and 35 further limit the abstract idea that the first client response comprises a client rejection of the proposed client agent match with the first client agent (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 12 and 36 further limit the abstract idea that the first client response comprises a client acceptance of the proposed client agent match with the first client agent (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 20 further limit the abstract idea that one of the first or second client agent personal information includes at least one of client agent type information, client agent property type information, client agent specialties information, client agent region served information, and client agent languages information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 21 further limit the abstract idea that one of the first or second client agent professional information includes at least one of client agent broker information, client agent social media information, client agent social media ranking information, and client agent number of transaction per a period of time information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 22 further limit the abstract idea that one of the first or second client agent licensing information includes at least one of client agent license state, client agent license number, and client agent license year information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
Claim 23 further limit the abstract idea that the subsequent first client response comprises a client rejection of the second proposed client agent match with the second client agent (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). And claim 24 further limit the abstract idea that the subsequent first client response comprises a client acceptance of the second proposed client agent match with the second client agent (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
The identified recitation of the dependents claims falls within the Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonathan Cardella (US 2011/0078138 A1) hereinafter “Cardella” in view of Looney et al., (US 2021/0304335 A1) hereinafter “Looney”.
Claim 1:
Cardella as shown discloses a method for matching a client agent to a client for conducting a client transaction, the method comprising:
(a) providing a system application server including a memory for storing processor instructions and a processor for executing the processor instructions; (b) providing a system session server, in communication with the system application server, the system session server configured to establish and maintain a system session with at least one user and generate at least one user interface accessible by the at least one user (¶ 0047: “FIG. 32 shows a diagram of a data collection server and its connection to other content servers”, ¶ 0050-0051: “FIG. 1, a flow chart is shown providing an overview of the interaction between the system, described herein as a web service system 10 and subsystems 20, 22, 24. […] An information management subsystem 20 communicates with a customer subsystem 22 and agent subsystem 24.” ¶ 0053-0054: “an agent may arrive at the web service interface 37 for the first time.” ¶ 0116: “A customer computer 200 may contact the web service system server 202 through the internet 204. When a search is requested, the web service server 202 may request data from internal local or network database servers 206” and ¶ 0134: “FIG. 10, a screenshot of the agent profile interface.”);
(c) providing a user profile database, in communication with the system application server, the user profile database including (¶ 0054: “If the agent's information is already in the database and the agent's profile exists 38, the agent may claim the profile 40. Otherwise, the agent will be required to create a new profile 42 for inclusion in the database.”);
(ii) at least one client agent profile record including client agent personal information comprising […] client agent professional information, and client agent licensing information (¶ 0134: “ FIG. 10, a screenshot of the agent profile interface to the agent database module is shown. The agent profile interface displays a selection of the information collected about the agent by the web service system. This may include contact information, current listings, past listings, blog links/posts, customer reviews, answered questions, twitter posts, recommendations and other information gathered by the web service system. The information may be further condensed into summary statistics.” And ¶ 0176: “A typical agent profile may include years of experience, number of lawsuits pending or resolved, negative or average user reviews, average fees, locations of service, number of clients serviced, office location, licenses/certificates active or inactive, education, and active insurances.”
Cardella teaches in ¶ 0110: “A buyer may either navigate to the web service by searching for a home 152 or by navigating to a request real estate agent page or interface 154. The web service system then requests information about the buyer's desired home characteristics. This may be auto-populated by selecting a link from a home result page 156 or manually filled in by the buyer 158. The buyer then may create an account 159 to access the web service system 10”. Cardella is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Looney in an analogous art of real estate management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
(i) at least one client profile record including client personal information and client information, and ¶ 0010: “The consumer profile may include various types of information associated with the consumer, such as personal consumer information, information about real estate the consumer has posted for sale, information about preferences with respect to real estate the consumer is searching for to purchase, saved real estate postings, etc.”
comprising open-access engagement tools (Figures 1, 3A-3B, see also ¶ 0053: “The consumer may also provide other types of information, such as real estate preferences (e.g., desired real estate location, features, etc.).” and ¶ 0055: ”search criteria comprising at least one of: consumer preferences, a geographical location, or a price range. In other words, the request may be in the form of the consumer entering a search into the real estate transaction system or creating a posting to sell their own real estate.”);
and an anonymized data tracking code, (¶ 0012: “ to anonymize information associated with the real estate transaction system, such as the consumer profile information and consumer device identifying information.” See also Figure 4 reference character 416: “Sending the first communication to a realtor device associated with the realtor profile, the first communication being anonymous, wherein anonymous communications are absent of the personal consumer information and identifying information of the consumer device”);
Both Cardella and Looney teach real estate management. Cardella teaches in the Abstract: “A method and system dynamically matches real estate agent experience with property characteristics submitted by a customer through evaluating an agent's history of home closings in light of the requested home characteristics.” Looney teaches in the Abstract “anonymous real estate transactions.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Wang would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Wang to the teaching of Cardella would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as (i) at least one client profile record including client personal information and client information, comprising open-access engagement tools and an anonymized data tracking code into similar systems. Further, as noted by Looney “allow the consumer to use the system and interact with realtors without the realtors being able to access any of this information without the consumer's permission.” (Looney, ¶ 0012).
In addition, Cardella teaches:
(d) matching, via the system application server, a first client associated with a first client profile record to a first client agent associated with a first client agent profile record based on (i) at least one of the client personal information and the client interest information, and (ii) at least one of the client agent personal information, client agent professional information and client agent licensing information of the first client agent (¶ 0055-0056: “a customer may arrive at the web service interface 46. The customer inputs his desired or actual home criteria 48, such as any variety of home characteristics and optionally specify agent characteristics, which may include gender, languages spoken, required years of experience, and whether the agent is an active real estate investor. The customer then submits the information to the information management subsystem 20 to request an agent 50. […] the subsystems then begin interacting with the purpose of matching the house characteristic information and, optionally the agent characteristics, submitted in 48 to an agent's history mined in 32. Each agent servicing the home area submitted in 48 is evaluated against the same home criteria 52. The system returns one or more agents 54 and communicates the results to both the customer subsystem 22 and the agent subsystem 24.”):
(e) notifying the first client, via the system session server generating a client user interface, of a proposed client agent match with the first client agent (¶ 0111-0112: “If the buyer had previously selected a specific house, the buyer may choose to contact the seller's agent directly 162. The buyer may alternately choose a quick match to an agent that best matches the desired home characteristics 164, and, if important, be immediately available. […] If the buyer selects a quick match, an agent is notified of the match 164”);
(f) receiving, via the client user interface, a first client response to a first client agent notification (¶ 0057: “ If the customer accepts the agent 62 and the agent accepts the customer 64, the agent begins work on finalizing any terms necessary to acquire the customer as a client.”);
(g) updating, via the system application server to the user profile database, the first client profile record with the first client response; and (¶ 0137: “After deciding to receive the agent match benefits, a seller is requested to fill out house characteristics that may be used by the agent match system. A seller may optionally specify a target time frame when they would like to sell their home. In one embodiment, the system may auto-populate the fields from previously stored data based on an address or MLS number. The client may then have the option to update any information that is out of date.”);
(h) displaying, via the system session server at the client user interface, the first client response regarding the proposed client agent match with the first client agent (¶ 0132-0133: “FIG. 8, a screenshot of the agent recommendations and the interface to the vetting module is shown. […] FIG. 9, a screenshot of the bid comparison interface to the customer bid review and acceptance module is shown. […] The bid comparison screen shown is a summary/comparison screen that allows the seller/buyer to compare key statistics related to the agent representation. The customer may further drill down into the specifics of the offered representation by clicking on a link”);
Claims 13 and 25:
The limitations of claims 13 and 25 (Figure 4) encompass substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 1, as described above. The following are the limitations of claim 13 that differ from claim 1.
Cardella as shown discloses a computing system, the system comprising:
(f) receiving, via the client user interface, a first client rejection response to a first client agent notification of a proposed client agent match with the first client agent; (¶ 0132: “FIG. 8, a screenshot of the agent recommendations and the interface to the vetting module is shown. If a bid is requested by the customer, the top matched agents are shown. The customer has an opportunity to refuse any of the agents based on their personal biases. This vetting module is useful to prevent an agent from wasting time to bid on an opportunity when the customer would never select the agent based on some characteristic or bias. For example, some customers may never choose an agent who worked for a national firm or an unrecognized brokerage. Likewise, a customer may prefer to have an agent who is of the same gender, same age or other characteristic so that the customer may inquire of the agent about issues which may be important to the customer.”);
(g) updating, via the system application server to the user profile database, the first client profile record with first client response information (Figures 13, 14 and 15, ¶ 0138-0140: “FIG. 13, a screenshot of another embodiment of the agent recommendation interface and vetting module is shown. […] after filling out the survey data, the client is presented with this screen on their display. Agent profiles are accessible from the agent name links, areas served are linked to area profiles, and the summary statistics of the agents are shown. […] After the customer has selected the potential agents from which to receive bids, the agents receive a message (such as in FIG. 15) […] After a client has requested selected agents to bid, an invitation to bid is sent to the selected agents. The agent may then choose to submit a proposal, decline involvement or, in some cases, request more information.” See also ¶ 0144);
(h) displaying, via the system session server at the client user interface, the first client response information regarding the proposed client agent match with the first client agent (¶ 0132-0133: “FIG. 8, a screenshot of the agent recommendations and the interface to the vetting module is shown. […] FIG. 9, a screenshot of the bid comparison interface to the customer bid review and acceptance module is shown. […] The bid comparison screen shown is a summary/comparison screen that allows the seller/buyer to compare key statistics related to the agent representation. The customer may further drill down into the specifics of the offered representation by clicking on a link”);
(i) matching, via the system application server, the first client associated with the first client profile record to a second client agent associated with a second client agent profile record based on (i) at least one of personal information and client interest information of the first 3 client, and (ii) at least one of second client agent personal information, second client agent professional information and second client agent licensing information (¶ 0112: “If the buyer selects a quick match, an agent is notified of the match 164. If the customer does not accept the top matching agent 166, that agent is removed from the results 168 and the request may be repeated 164. Once the buyer accepts an agent, the agent and buyer may work together to find a desired home 167.” See also ¶ 0055-0056);
(j) notifying the first client, via the system session server generating the client user interface, of a second proposed client agent match with the second client agent; (¶ 0111-0112: “If the buyer had previously selected a specific house, the buyer may choose to contact the seller's agent directly 162. The buyer may alternately choose a quick match to an agent that best matches the desired home characteristics 164, and, if important, be immediately available. […] If the buyer selects a quick match, an agent is notified of the match 164” see also ¶ 0139-0140);
(k) receiving, via the client user interface, a subsequent first client response to a second client agent notification (¶ 0057: “ If the customer accepts the agent 62 and the agent accepts the customer 64, the agent begins work on finalizing any terms necessary to acquire the customer as a client.” See also ¶ 0138-0140);
(l) updating, via the system application server to the user profile database, the first client profile record with second client response information; and (Figures 13, 14 and 15, ¶ 0138-0140 and 0144);
(m) displaying, via the system session server at the client user interface, the second client response information regarding the second proposed client agent match with the second client agent (¶ 0132-0133: “FIG. 8, a screenshot of the agent recommendations and the interface to the vetting module is shown. […] FIG. 9, a screenshot of the bid comparison interface to the customer bid review and acceptance module is shown. […] The bid comparison screen shown is a summary/comparison screen that allows the seller/buyer to compare key statistics related to the agent representation. The customer may further drill down into the specifics of the offered representation by clicking on a link” See also Figures 13, 14 and 15, ¶ 0138-0140 and 0144);
Claims 2, 14 and 26:
Cardella as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the transaction is a real estate transaction (¶ 0057-0058: “After reaching an agreement, the agent then works with the customer to purchase or sell real estate. Upon closing of a real estate deal, the information is input into the agent subsystem 66 along with payment information 68”);
Claims 3, 15 and 27:
Cardella as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the method is applied to an engagement platform that is selected from the group consisting of customer engagement platforms, student engagement platforms, donor engagement platforms, buyer engagement platforms, employee engagement platforms, community engagement platforms, sales engagement platforms, and real estate engagement platforms (¶ 0051: “An information management subsystem 20 communicates with a customer subsystem 22 and agent subsystem 24.” i.e., customer/student/donor/community engagement platform buyer /employee/community engagement platform, ¶ 0055: “ a customer may arrive at the web service interface 46”, ¶ 0054: “an agent may arrive at the web service interface 37” i.e., real estate engagement platform, and ¶ 0058: “Upon closing of a real estate deal, the information is input into the agent subsystem 66 along with payment information 68, which is communicated to the information management system 20.” i.e., sales/real engagement platform);
Claims 4, 16 and 28:
Cardella as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the method is applied to an engagement platform and the method further comprises generating client structured engagement data from client interest [personal] information and using it with the client agent and/or an Al agent (¶ 0125: “Overseeing the customer and agent experience may be a customer service subsystem. The customer service subsystem may monitor a customer's interaction from the website, including from the customer's first arrival on the web service system to the wrapping up of closing on a home. It may further monitor agent activities and interactions. By monitoring customer progression and agent activities, the customer service subsystem may be able to not only create reports of activity, but also detect potential problems and deploy customer service representatives to proactively resolve those problems” ¶ 00158: “When viewing a profile, the web service may review any searches performed by the customer and place them in a sidebar to the profile” see also ¶0055-0057, 0141 and 0155);
Claims 5, 17 and 29:
Cardella is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Looney in an analogous art of real estate management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein the client structured engagement data is generated before the client provides the client's identification information (¶ 0011: “the consumer device may include identifying information regarding the consumer device (for example, a device type, a location of the consumer device, a MAC address, an IP address, or any other identifying information).” See also ¶ 0012: “ the identifying information associated with the consumer device that the consumer is using to access the system may also be hidden or otherwise unobtainable by the realtor (as well as any other users of the system).”);
Both Cardella and Looney teach real estate management. Cardella teaches in the Abstract: “A method and system dynamically matches real estate agent experience with property characteristics submitted by a customer through evaluating an agent's history of home closings in light of the requested home characteristics.” Looney teaches in the Abstract “anonymous real estate transactions.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Wang would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Wang to the teaching of Cardella would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as wherein the client structured engagement data is generated before the client provides the client's identification information into similar systems. Further, as noted by Looney “allow the consumer to use the system and interact with realtors without the realtors being able to access any of this information without the consumer's permission.” (Looney, ¶ 0012).
Claims 6, 18 and 30:
Cardella as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the client interest information comprises client buyer property information including client buyer target property criteria (¶ 0009: “ the web service compares the details of a seller's home or of a buyer's desired home attributes against an agent's history of homes for sale or purchase, whether it be home price, location or other characteristics.”);
Claims 7, 19 and 31:
Cardella as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the client interest information comprises client seller property information (Figure 7, ¶ 0131: “FIG. 7, a screenshot of the seller information survey system is shown. The seller is requested to fill out a survey of the home's characteristics for use in the home-agent matching system and other important data.”);
Claims 8, 20 and 32:
Cardella as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein [one of the first or second] the client agent personal information includes at least one of client agent type information, client agent property type information, client agent specialties information, client agent region served information, and client agent languages information (¶ 0060-0097: describe “Data attributes that may be used by the system to recommend agents to a customer”, Figures 8-10, see also ¶ 0134, 0138, 0156-0157”);
Claims 9, 21 and 33:
Cardella as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein [one of the first or second] the client agent professional information includes at least one of client agent broker information, client agent social media information, client agent social media ranking information, and client agent number of transaction per a period of time information (¶ 0060-0097: describe “Data attributes that may be used by the system to recommend agents to a customer”, Figures 8-10, see also ¶ 0109, 0134, 0138, 0156-0157);
Claims 10, 22 and 34:
Cardella as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein [one of the first or second] the client agent licensing information includes at least one of client agent license state, client agent license number, and client agent license year information (¶ 0060-0061: “Agent's state license status” see also ¶ 0118: “The web service system may require agent pre-approval based on an acceptance of terms of service from the agent or the agent's brokerage, including a co-cooperative brokerage agreement, and an experience and license status check”, ¶ 0176):
Claims 11 and 35:
Cardella as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first client response comprises a client rejection of the proposed client agent match with the first client agent (¶ 0132: “FIG. 8, a screenshot of the agent recommendations and the interface to the vetting module is shown. If a bid is requested by the customer, the top matched agents are shown. The customer has an opportunity to refuse any of the agents based on their personal biases. This vetting module is useful to prevent an agent from wasting time to bid on an opportunity when the customer would never select the agent based on some characteristic or bias. For example, some customers may never choose an agent who worked for a national firm or an unrecognized brokerage. Likewise, a customer may prefer to have an agent who is of the same gender, same age or other characteristic so that the customer may inquire of the agent about issues which may be important to the customer.”);
Claim 23:
The limitations of claim 23 encompasses substantially the same scope as claim 11. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 11, as described above.
Claims 12 and 36:
Cardella as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first client response comprises a client acceptance of the proposed client agent match with the first client agent (¶ 0057: “ If the customer accepts the agent 62 and the agent accepts the customer 64, the agent begins work on finalizing any terms necessary to acquire the customer as a client.”);
Claim 24:
The limitations of claim 24 encompasses substantially the same scope as claim 12. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 12, as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADJA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3939. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 2:00 pm 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, RUTAO WU can be reached on 571.272.6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NADJA N CHONG CRUZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
