Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received on 2/4/26.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 14-17, 20 have been amended.
Claim 18 has been previously cancelled.
Therefore, Claims 1-17, 19-20 are now pending and have been addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/4/26 has been entered.
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 1-17,19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 9-16 are directed to a method, and Claims 1-8, 17, 19-20 are directed to a system. Thus, this claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claim falls within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite methods that receive, a set of user analytics associated with a user, and a troubleshooting request associated with an issue; simulate a plurality of user interactions and corresponding responses recorded in the set of user to recreate at least one state of the premises and at least one user action, the at least one state of the premises and the at least one user action having caused the issue associated with the troubleshooting request; and generating, a digital video file based on the simulation of the user interactions and the corresponding system responses; and cause the digital video file to be accessible to a security system platform; input the digital video file and user analytics into a model; receive an output ; the output being a predicted resolution code for resolving the troubleshooting request (Claims 1, 9, 17); receiving the predicted resolution code and cause an; overlay at least one of an instruction , a message or a prompt based on the predicted resolution code (Claim 17)
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as (claims 1, 9 ,17) server, a first premises device, processing circuitry, a second premises device, instantiate a virtual machine instance, trained machine learning model, (Claims 9, 17) simulation manager, (Claim 17) user module), the claims are directed to providing troubleshooting based on user analytics. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving incident data, analyzing it, and providing resolution. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – (claims 1, 9 ,17) server, a first premises device, processing circuitry, a second premises device, instantiate a virtual machine instance, trained machine learning model, (Claims 9, 17) simulation manager, (Claim 17) user module. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. a) The additional elements merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitation of “input the digital video file into train the machine learning model…and receive an output..” is simply application of a computer model, itself an abstract idea. Furthermore, such training and applying of a model is no more than putting data into a black box machine learning operation, devoid of technological implementation and application details. Each step requires a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; provide resolution to troubleshooting request. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to the (claims 1, 9 ,17) server, a first premises device, processing circuitry, a second premises device, instantiate a virtual machine instance, trained machine learning model, (Claims 9, 17) simulation manager, (Claim 17) user module these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification [0017] Premises security system 12 comprises one or more premises devices 16 such as a security alarm panel 16a and a user module 18a (e.g., implemented in a premises device 16), [0052] the machine learning model includes one of linear regression, logistic regression, decision trees, random forest, and gradient boosting. [0074] computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer. [0054] The user contacts support, i.e., the support agent (Block S154). The support agent looks up the user's account on the support agent module 28(Block S156). The support agent module 28 requests simulation via the security system platform ”. The limitation of “instantiate a virtual machine” is recited at high level of generality and similar to Krishnan et al. (US 2021/0049089 A1) ([0020] enable the developer to set up a virtual machine (“VM”) that runs the relevant client information). These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); See Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1359–60 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (making simulation models by graphical modeling was abstract). Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) discussing elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities in particular fields. Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 19-20 add additional limitations, for example but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as representative claims 1, 9 and 17.
Claims 2, 10 recites receive an account lookup; retrieve an account profile. Claims 3, 11 recites receive simulation request; receive simulation authorization. Claims 4-5, 12-13 recite redact digital video file and play redacted file; anonymize user analytics. Claim 6-7, 14-16 recites receive a case resolution code; train a machine learning model; generate predicted resolution code; Further, the limitation of “train the machine learning system” is simply application of a computer model, itself an abstract idea. Furthermore, such training and applying of a model is no more than putting data into a black box machine learning operation. Claims 19-20 recite transmission of data representing a configuration; transmission of second user analytics; generation of predicted resolution code are simple transmission of data. The dependent claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving incident data, analyzing it, and providing resolution. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – server, processing circuitry, the premises device, instantiate a virtual machine instance, autonomous support unit trained using a machine learning model, simulation manager. The server, processing circuitry, the premises device, instantiate a virtual machine instance, autonomous support unit trained using a machine learning model, simulation manager are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. a) The limitations of a the premises device, instantiate a virtual machine instance merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Further, the limitation of “train the machine learning system” is simply application of a computer model, itself an abstract idea. Furthermore, such training and applying of a model is no more than putting data into a black box machine learning operation. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding 112b rejection, applicant remarks on pages 10-12 have been considered. Applicant has amended Claims 1, 8 and 17 to overcome the 35 U.S.C 112b rejections. Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112b rejections with respect to these and all depending claims unless otherwise indicated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dechu (US 10,664,522) discusses using an electronic device to engage in an interactive session between a user and a virtual assistant; receiving, at the electronic device, audio input from the user, wherein the audio input comprises a problem-solving query corresponding to a request by the user for assistance in solving a problem related to at least one object; parsing the audio input to identify at least one annotated video file corresponding to the at least one object and the problem-solving query
Patel et al. (US 2020/0159891 A1) discusses redact at least one secure information field depicted in the digital video file to generate a redacted digital video file ([0118] redacting information from video file, [0121] portions of video file are redacted, blocked out or pixelated in order to protect the identity of a person. In this case, the block including the redacted video file will include metadata associated with the redacted video file, e.g., how the redaction was performed, who performed the redaction, timestamps where the redaction(s) occurred, etc.);
Pichillani (US 2022/0171641 A1) teaches generate, a digital video file simulating a plurality of troubleshooting actions associated with the troubleshooting request ([0042] Troubleshooting system 106 records agent actions (step 302). In an embodiment, troubleshooting system 106 records video of actions performed by an agent and/or the user in a troubleshooting process. [0044] The frame by frame analysis classifies actions performed by the agent and/or the user. For example, actions may be classified as mouse movement, clicks, typing, etc. The frame by frame analysis also enables troubleshooting system 106 to extract tiles related to user interface elements with which the agent and/or the user interacted., [0046] Troubleshooting system 106 generates a new script (step 310). In an embodiment, troubleshooting system 106 runs the model trained in step 308 and generates a new solution script from the output of the model); and cause the digital video file to be accessible to a security system platform. (Fig 2 # 218 store new script, [0050] solution script database 112)
Fallon (US 7,158,022) discloses automatically reports and collects security surveillance problems, device diagnostics and device state information from cameras (collection of recorded video) and security detection equipment. Devices may be attached to a network or attached through a device controller on a network
Baum (US 11,626,006) discloses a security system is described for managing a premises. The security system comprises security system components and a first controller. A takeover component receives security data of the security system from the first controller. The security data is used to configure a second controller to communicate with the security system
McLean teaches generate, a digital video file simulating a plurality of actions associated with the troubleshooting request and that preceded the troubleshooting request being received from the premise device ([0078] services platform 300 communicates with and collects data from the smart devices of the smart home environment 100. In addition, in some implementations, the devices and services platform 300 communicates with and collects data from a plurality of smart home environments across the world. For example, the smart home provider server system 164 collects home data 302 (video data) from the devices of one or more smart home environments 100, where the devices may routinely transmit home data or may transmit home data in specific instances (e.g., when a device queries the home data 302), [0095] The video storage database 514 stores raw video data received from the video sources 522, as well as various types of metadata, such as motion events, event categories, event category models, event filters, and event masks, for use in data processing for event monitoring and review for each reviewer account. [0366] video server system 552 transmits camera history information to the client device 504 for display.); and cause the digital video file to be accessible to a security system platform. ([0079] the smart home provider server system 164 provides one or more services 304 to smart homes and/or third parties. Example services 304 include, without limitation, software updates, customer support, sensor data collection/logging, remote access)
White (US 9418172) teaches generate, a digital video file including a plurality of actions that are associated with the user interaction and that preceded the troubleshooting request being received from the premise device (Col 8 lines 49-59create video or “movies” from interaction data. For example, such interaction data may be combined, modified, extrapolated or otherwise “stitched together” as is known in the art to generate a video representation of the user's webpage interaction., Col 10 lines 54-60tracking a user's interaction with video or dynamic multimedia applications, such as Adobe Flash™ and Adobe Flex™ applications or movies, processing operation 510 may include a user request for a Flash™ or Flex™ application or website comprising such an application from a web server 20., Claim 6 the interaction visualization from the user interaction data is converted into a video file and played back with a multimedia playback application)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights