CTFR 17/707,474 CTFR 95224 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 12, and 14 – 22 are pending. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 – 5, 7 – 12, and 14 – 22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a method and a device; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter. At Step 2A, Prong One , of eligibility analysis, the claims set forth a method to share data (information) about renters and properties, analyzing that data (determine rental stages), and evaluating that data to determine a level of risk for possible rental situations. The claims are descriptive of homeshare companies monitoring owners or renters occupying real property. This is descriptive of the business relations between these entities, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, the claims recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which is an abstract idea. Claim 15, which is illustrative of claims 1 and 8, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below): A computer-implemented method of calculating a level of risk using aggregated homeshare data from a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of participants to thereby improve security, the computer-implemented method comprising: monitoring , by one or more processors, the distributed ledger for an indication of homeshare data , the homeshare data based upon sensor data transmitted from at least one of a sensor within a real property or a smart device within the real property in realtime, and the homeshare data including a rental phase of at least part of the real property that a user rents out through a homeshare company during a time period; generating, by the one or more processors, a transaction including a cryptographic hash value corresponding to the homeshare data, wherein the transaction is stored in the distributed ledger, wherein the distributed ledger maintains a record of a plurality of users and the homeshare company for which individual users of the plurality of users rent out at least part of respective real properties; transmitting, by the one or more processors, the transaction to at least one other participant of the plurality of participants maintaining the distributed ledger; determining, by the one or more processors and based upon the rental phase during the time period for the homeshare company, a level of risk for the user during the time period; calculating, by the one or more processors and via a server computing device, an overall level of risk for the user corresponding to the user renting out the at least part of the real property based upon the homeshare data and the level of risk for the user during the time period, wherein calculating the level of risk includes generating the level of risk by a machine learning model trained based upon a plurality of sets of homeshare data and corresponding levels of risk; validating, by the one or more processors, accuracy of overall the level of risk based upon a comparison of the transmitted homeshare data and the transaction; and (i) in response to the validating and when the transmitted homeshare data is consistent with the transaction, providing, by the one or more processors, an indication of the level of risk to a network participant of the plurality of participants that is associated with the homeshare company; or, (ii) when the transmitted homeshare data is not consistent with the transaction, providing, by the one or more processors, an indication that the homeshare data has been tampered with to the network participant of the plurality of participants that is associated with the homeshare company. At Step 2A, Prong Two , the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[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. Claims 1, 8, and 15, recite only the following additional elements: a sensor within the real property or a smart device within the real property; a transaction including a cryptographic hash value, wherein the transaction is stored in the distributed ledger, wherein the distributed ledger maintains a record; a machine learning model; a computing device comprising: one or more processors; a communication unit; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors and the communication unit and storing instructions. Certain elements – (a sensor or a smart device, a computing device comprising: one or more processors; a communication unit; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors and the communication unit and storing instructions) - are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0052 – 0057], as filed. Other components, including, a sensor or a smart device, are also generically described at [0053]. The claims further add elements that describe the use of a technological environment – blockchain technology – when reciting a transaction including a cryptographic hash value, wherein the transaction is stored in the distributed ledger, wherein the distributed ledger maintains a record. This technology is broadly and generally defined with in the disclosure. See Specification [0040 – 0041] and Figures 3 and 5A-5B . Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, these recitations describe use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of ( a sensor or a smart device; a transaction including a cryptographic hash value, wherein the transaction is stored in the distributed ledger, a computing device comprising: one or more processors; a communication unit; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors and the communication unit and storing instructions ), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the recitation to a machine learning model trained based upon a plurality of … data …overlaps with well-understood, routine, conventional activity as described at MPEP 2106.05(d). The Examiner notes that by a machine learning model trained upon … data … is defined within the disclosure in such a broad manner as to indicate the conventional nature of machine learning. At Specification [0079], the entirety of this element is defined: “[t]he machine learning model may be trained based upon a plurality of sets of homeshare data and corresponding levels of risk.” Following procedure as defined at MPEP 2106.07(a), the Examiner finds that this definition is disclosed in such a manner that indicates that this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Thus, the conventional use of machine learning is analogous to the well-understood definition of a machine learning model as a program that is trained on data to recognize patterns and make predictions or decisions about new, unseen data. Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more. Dependent claims 2 – 4, 9 – 11, and 17 – 19, contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1, 8, and 15. References to renter data, a property, a state of rental, and a homeshare (rental) company , are further recitations to the data (information) about renters and properties; therefore, they are directed to the abstract idea identified – the business relation between homeshare companies and user (owners or renters). Furthermore, these claims include recitations that amount to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea on a computer – ( a computing device or sensors ) of claims 1, 8, and 15. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Dependent claims 5, 7, 12, and 14, further describe the implementation of abstract idea steps within a computer environment. The technology employed as an enabler for implementing such business methods and for carrying out said business methods amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea method in a generic blockchain environment. Its use for carrying out non-technical processes forms part of common general knowledge and it was widely available at the date of filing of the present application. This renders the claims as being not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Dependent claims 16 – 20 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claim 15. The blockchain technology employed, ( a cryptographic hash and distributed ledger ) as an enabler for implementing and for carrying out said business methods amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea method in a generic block chain environment. This renders the claims as being not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f). Recitations to the level of risk and attributing it to the homeshare company as well as further monitoring of renter data are consistent with the abstract idea of data about renters and properties and the business relation between them. Further, these claims include recitations that amount to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea on a computer – ( the computing device or sensor ) of claim 15. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Claims 21 and 22 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to a level of risk, compromised data, and an insurance policy are directed to the business relation between the homeshare companies and renters, and the risk, of any, of the insurance needed for that relationship. Furthermore, these claims include recitations that amount to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea on a computer – ( a computing device or sensors ) of claim 1. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1 – 5, 7 – 12, 14 – 22, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more. Claims Distinguished over Prior Art Regarding the amended claims, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Upon updated research and in view of amendments to the claims, the Examiner maintains the conclusion detailed within the Office Action filed 10/21/2025. Accordingly, the current claim set is distinguished over the prior art. Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections within this Office Action. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of all prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 10. Applicant remarks first, that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, and second, the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see page 11. Applicant points to the August 4 memo, and contends that amended claim 1, does not recite an abstract idea as exemplified within the memo. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant . The Examiner first remarks that the August 4 memo initially states; “[t]his memorandum is not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.” Thus, the Examiner maintains that a proper analysis was conducted at Prong One, and the claims recite an abstract idea. Applicant’s reliance on the memorandum’s cite to Example 39 is misplaced. That example described computer-implemented elements that did not recite a method of organizing human activity, among others, [an abstract idea]. That is not the case in the instant application. The Examiner notes that the newly amended claims set forth a method of sharing data (information) about renters and properties, analyzing that data (determine rental stages), and evaluating that data to determine a level of risk for possible rental situations. Those elements that describe the instant method include are identified and highlighted above. Thus, the claims recite a method to conduct the commercial interaction among the homeshare company and possible renters. Because the Examiner maintains the several elements above are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, they are directed to an abstract idea. Merely training a model based on data, when that data is directed to certain parties and a real property, is not analogous to the Example’s training of a neural network (and it’s well-defined algorithm), based on specific, technology-centric data (transformed and modified). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant next argues analysis at Prong Two, and contends the application describes a problem of “fraudulent reporting..” and points to a need for “securely and accurately tracking homeshare data…” See page 12. Applicant adds that amended claim 1 recites “…a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome …”, and is therefore, as outlined by the memo, patent eligible. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. Applicant has added an element that recites: “transmitting, by one or more processors, an indication that the homeshare data has been tampered with…”. When further analyzing this newly amended recitation, the Examiner notes that first, this step is accomplished by one or more processors. Thus, this one element recites use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for other tasks, (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). Further, Applicant simply adds a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See Specification [0052 – 0057], where Applicant has described these computing elements generically. The Examiner notes second, that this step is further accomplished by utilizing blockchain technology. Applicant’s own disclosure notes that using blockchain puts forth the “… inability to modify past transactions [and] leads to blockchains being generally described as trusted, secure, and immutable. Therefore, blockchains may remove potential attack vectors for tampering with the homeshare data, such as a centralized database maintained by an organization involved in determining the level of risk for a user. one or more processors. Specification [0045]. Therefore, the use of blockchain in its ordinary fashion creates an indication of tampering, not the Applicant’s combination of this or other additional elements. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST. 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. /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629 DONALD J. EDMONDS Examiner Art Unit 3629 Application/Control Number: 17/707,474 Page 2 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 17/707,474 Page 3 Art Unit: 3629
Prosecution Insights