DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of October 15, 2024. The rejections are stated below. Claims 21-36 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 3/21/2024 concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “A. The Pending Claims Are Not Directed To An Abstract Idea”.
The claim limitations which constitute the idea are receiving data, record the data in memory, receive pairing data, transmit the sensor data and wireless pairing data, generate a profile based on the sensor data and wireless pairing data, store the profile in memory, display a portion of utility consumption at the property associated with the user. The claimed use of “the processors to maintain application infrastructure, record device-captured sensor data, which is generated by utility sensors connected to utility supplies, and wireless pairing data, to write pairing profiles to memory, and to cause execution of a software application on a user computing device” is mere using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or linking the abstract idea to a particular environment (computer environment).
Applicant argues “B. Even if the Claims Were Directed to an Alleged Abstract Idea, They Recite Something Significantly More Than the Alleged Abstract Idea Itself”.
Not Well-Understood, Routine, or Conventional was not the basis of the rejection. Examiner has analyzed claims 21 and 29 and found that it recites the abstract idea of generating a pooled investment. Claims 21 and 29 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed in the rejection with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claimed use of “the processors to maintain application infrastructure, record device-captured sensor data, which is generated by utility sensors connected to utility supplies, and wireless pairing data, to write pairing profiles to memory, and to cause execution of a software application on a user computing device” when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
3. Claims 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claim 29 is directed to a computer system for determining individual property user usage of the property.
4. Claim 29 recites “a …-implemented method for measuring utility consumption at a property using …, the method implemented by a … including a … having a …, and a … ;(ii) at least one … physically located at the …; and (iii) a … physically located at the …, the … including a … and a …,the method comprising:
maintaining, by the …, an … associated with a … downloaded and executed on a plurality of …;
communicatively coupling the … to the at least one … and to a … at the property, the … collecting … including … associated with … of any user … at the property to the …,
continuously receiving, by the …, … from the at least one …;
continuously recording, by the …,the …;
receiving, by the … from the …, the …;
periodically transmitting, to the …, the … and …;
applying, by the ..., … functionality to a first set of … and … to generate a pairing profile for each of a plurality of … that … with the … over a period of time;
writing, by the ..., the pairing profiles to the …; and
causing, by the …, execution of the … on a … of the plurality of … to display, within a … of the executed … a portion of overall utility consumption at the property that is associated with the pairing profile of the …”.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of determining individual property user usage of the property and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Accordingly, claim 29 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
5. The claim also recites as additional elements such as “control system including a server computing device having a first memory and a first processor”, “utility sensor”, “control hub including a second memory and a second processor”, “application infrastructure associated with a software application downloaded and executed on a plurality of user computing devices”, “communicatively coupling the control hub to the at least one senor and to a wireless router”, “trained” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 29 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
6. Further, as the additional elements of claim 29 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 29 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
7. Claim 21 also recites the abstract idea of determining individual property user usage of the property which is grouped under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic principles including insurance mitigating risk) in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04). Claim 21 includes the additional elements of “a control system’, “a server computing device”, “application infrastructure associated with a software application downloaded and executed on a plurality of user computer devices, the server computing device comprising a first memory and a first processor”, “at least one utility sensor”, “a control hub wireless connected with the at least one utility sensor and a wireless router”, “control hub comprising a second memory and a second processor”, “trained”, and “user interface of the executed software application”. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or lo any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a}.
8. Claim 22 recites “the … of Claim 21, wherein the … is further … to: identify, in a second set of recorded sensor data and wireless pairing data, a pairing anomaly associated with a …; in response to identifying the pairing anomaly, transmit a confirmation request to the …; and overwrite the pairing profile for the first user … based upon the pairing anomaly using a response to the confirmation request”. The claim includes “the control system of claim 21, wherein the first processor is further programmed to” and “first user computing device” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
9. Claim 23 recites “the … of Claim 21, wherein the … is further … to … a machine learning model using a training set of verified wireless pairing data and utility sensor data”. The claim includes “the control system of claim 21, wherein the first processor is further programmed to train” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
10. Claim 24 recites “the … of Claim 23, wherein the … is further … to verify a portion of the wireless pairing data and sensor data based upon one or more of (i) biometric signals received from at least one … physically present at the property, (11) user-specific keys used to access the property, or (ii1) verification messaging between the …”. The claim includes “the control system of claim 23, wherein the second processor is further programmed to”, “biometric telematic device”, and “first or second processor and the user computing device paired with the wireless router” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
11. Claim 25 recites “the … of Claim 21, wherein the … is further … to: identify, based upon the received wireless pairing data, an … during an interval of time; in response to identifying the … present at the property, detect the … is paired with the wireless router during at least a portion of the interval of time; and transmit, to the …, a user identification request requesting that a user associated with … identify the …”. The claim includes “the control system of claim 21, wherein the first processor is further programmed to”, “an unrecognized user computing device wireless paired with the wireless router” and “first user computing device” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
12. Claim 26 recites “the … of Claim 21, wherein the sensor data further includes location data representing a location of the …, and wherein the … is further … to generate the pairing profiles including a location of the … within the property over the period of time”. The claim includes “the control system of claim 21”, “utility sensor”, and “wherein the first processor is further programmed” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
13. Claim 27 recites “the … of Claim 21, wherein the … is further … to associate utility consumption with two pairing profiles during an interval of time when the … and another user … are simultaneously paired with the …”. The claim includes “the control system of claim 21”, “first processor is further programmed”, “first user computing device and another user computing device”, and “wireless router” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
14. Claim 28 recites “the … of Claim 21, wherein the … is further … to: partition the received wireless pairing data based upon a device identifier of the respective …that was wirelessly paired with the …; filter the partitioned wireless pairing data based upon a first set of … at the property being continuously paired with the … for an interval of time exceeding a threshold period of time, the filtering including excluding the wireless pairing data associated with the first set of the …; and process the received sensor data and the filtered wireless pairing data to generate and write pairing profiles for only a second set of the …, the second set exclusive of the first set”. The claim includes “the control system of claim 21, wherein the first processor is further programmed to” “user computing device”, “wireless router”, and “user computing devices” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
15. Claim 30 recites “the … of Claim 21, wherein the … is further … to: identify, in a second set of recorded sensor data and wireless pairing data, a pairing anomaly associated with a …; in response to identifying the pairing anomaly, transmit a confirmation request to the …; and overwrite the pairing profile for the first user … based upon the pairing anomaly using a response to the confirmation request”. The claim includes “the control system of claim 21, wherein the first processor is further programmed to” and “first user computing device” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
16. Claim 31 recites “ further comprising …, by the …, a machine learning model using a set of verified wireless pairing data and utility sensor data”. The claim includes “training, by the server computing device” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
17. Claim 32 recites “further comprising verifying a portion of the wireless pairing data and sensor data based upon one or more of (i) biometric signals received from at least one … physically present at the property, (11) user-specific keys used to access the property, or (ii1) verification messaging between the …”. The claim includes “biometric telematic device”, and “user computers” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
18. Claim 33 recites “identifying, based upon the received wireless pairing data, an … during an interval of time; in response to identifying the … present at the property, detecting the … is paired with the wireless router during at least a portion of the interval of time; and transmitting, to the …, a user identification request requesting that a user associated with … identify the …”. The claim includes “an unrecognized user computing device wireless paired with the wireless router” and “first user computing device” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
19. Claim 34 recites “wherein the sensor data further includes location data representing a location of the respective …, the method further comprising generating, by the …, the pairing profiles including a location of the respective … within the property over the period of time”. The claim includes “utility sensor”, “server computing device” and “respective user computing device” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
20. Claim 35 recites “wherein the … is further … to associate utility consumption with two pairing profiles during an interval of time when the … and another user … are simultaneously paired with the …”. The claim includes “server computing device”, “first user computing device”, and “another user computing device” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
21. Claim 36 recites “further comprising: partitioning the received wireless pairing data based upon a device identifier of the respective … that was wirelessly paired with the …; filtering the partitioned wireless pairing data based upon a first set of … at the property being continuously paired with the … for an interval of time exceeding a threshold period of time, the filtering including excluding the wireless pairing data associated with the first set of the …; and processing the received sensor data and the filtered wireless pairing data to generate and write pairing profiles for only a second set of the …, the second set exclusive of the first set”. The claim includes “the control system of claim 21, wherein the first processor is further programmed to” “user computing device”, “wireless router”, and “user computing devices” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm 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, Calvin Hewitt can be reached on 571-272-6709. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights