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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed March 30, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and does not include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 and October 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Step 1
5. Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-10) and a machine (claims 11-20); where the machine is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
6. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
A computer-implemented method for generating base-line probable roof damage confidence score data associated with a roof of a building, the method comprising:
receiving, [[at one or more processors]], building data representative of attributes of the building;
receiving, [[at the one or more processors]], roof data representative of a roof of the building wherein the roof data includes a roof temperature and a roof component rating;
receiving, [[at the one or more processors]], historical weather data based upon the building data, wherein the historical weather data is representative of storm attributes associated with historical storms that have occurred in a geographic area that includes a geographic location of the building;
receiving, [[at the one or more processors]], historical hail data based upon the building data, wherein the historical hail data is representative of attributes of historical hail that has impacted the geographic area;
receiving, at the one or more processors, climate region data including a climate zone;
estimating, by the one or more processors, at least one attribute of the hail impacting in the geographic area based upon the audio data, wherein the at least one attribute includes at least one of a size of the hail, an elevation of the building exposed to hail, a density of the hail, and a hardness of the hail;
generating, [[by the one or more processors]], a base-line probable roof damage confidence score based upon the building data, the roof data, the historical weather data, the historical hail data, the climate region data, the real-time weather data, and the real-time hail data,
wherein a contribution of the roof data to the base-line probable roof damage confidence score is modified by the climate zone;
responsive to generating the base-line probable roof damage confidence score, estimating, [[at the one or more processors]], a probable roof damage confidence score based upon the base-line probable roof damage confidence score; and
responsive to estimating the probable roof damage confidence score exceeds a threshold score, transmitting, [[at the one or more processors]], at least a repair request notification to a roof repair vendor, the repair request notification indicating the probable roof damage confidence score.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial interactions (e.g., insurance -- here, determining a probability of loss corresponding to an insured property and requesting repairs from a merchant). Specifically, the examiner notes that the claims recite limitations for determining a score regarding the likelihood of damage occurring to the roof of a building (e.g., for insurance purposes). Therefore, these limitations may be classified as a fundamental economic principle/practice. However, the claims were also amended to recite limitations for requesting repairs from a vendor/merchant corresponding to the probable damage. Therefore, the claims may also be classified as a commercial interaction between a customer and a merchant.
Step 2A, Prong 2
7. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which claim 1 is directed does not include limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the limitations of claim 1 also recite generic computer components (e.g., one or more processors). In particular, the recited features of the abstract idea are merely being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In other words, the additional elements are simply used as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites the following limitation:
detecting, from the audio data, an audio signature of hail, wherein the audio signature of hail is representative of attributes of hail impacting in the geographic area in real-time; and
This limitation recites a process step for analyzing the audio data to determine an audio signature of hail. However, the claim does not provide any technical detail regarding how this process is performed. Rather, the claim simply broadly state that the audio signature is detected. Therefore, this limitation amounts to no more than simply applying generic audio data analysis technology to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 also includes the following limitations:
receiving, at the one or more processors, real-time weather data, wherein the real-time weather data is representative of storm attributes associated with storms occurring in the geographic area in real-time; and
responsive to a smart home device detecting an occurrence of hail, receiving, at the one or more processors, real-time hail data, wherein the real-time hail data includes audio data collected by the smart home device.
These limitations merely state that the system gathers weather/hail data in “real-time.” However, simply stating that the data is gathered in real-time does not amount to an improvement to any technology or technological field. The claims do not provide any detail regarding how the system/method has been improved to facilitate the gathering/implementation of the real-time data. Rather, the claim simply provides a generic statement that the data is gathered in real-time. Therefore, these limitations amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g): See MPEP 2106.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2024)).
Thus, claim 1 does not include any limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As a result, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
8. Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements of claim 1 are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the recited additional elements (e.g., one or more processors), do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality such that they are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (See also e.g., applicant’s Specification at least Paragraph 141).
Additionally, the following limitations identified above as insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) have been revaluated in Step 2B:
receiving, at the one or more processors, real-time weather data, wherein the real-time weather data is representative of storm attributes associated with storms occurring in the geographic area in real-time; and
responsive to a smart home device detecting an occurrence of hail, receiving, at the one or more processors, real-time hail data, wherein the real-time hail data includes audio data collected by the smart home device.
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of mere data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Thus, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additional Independent Claims
9. Independent claim 11 is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claim 11 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 1. However, the primary difference between claims 11 and 1 is that claim 11 is drafted as a system rather than as a method. Similarly, as described above regarding claim 1, claim 11 recites generic computer components (e.g., a computer system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory coupled to the one or more processors, and storing thereon instructions) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since the same analysis should be used for claims 1 and 11, claim 11 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Dependent Claims
10. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claims 2-5 and 12-15 simply provide further definition to the process of generating the base-line probable roof damage confidence score recited in claim 1. These claims state that the score is generated using a probability function comprising weighted variables. However, this does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, these claims simply further define the type of function, and the components of the function, used to perform the calculation. Additionally, simply stating that the weighting variable is “dynamically determined” does not amount to an improvement to any technology or technological field. The claims do not provide significant detail regarding how this determination is performed “dynamically.” Therefore, this limitation amounts to no more than simply determining the weighting variable based on the gathered data.
Claims 6-9 and 16-19 simply provide further definition to the various data (e.g., the attributes of the building, the roof data, the attributes of the historical storms, and the attributes of the historical hail) that is received in claim 1. Simply stating that this data may comprise various types of data points does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this simply defines the type of data that is received.
Claims 10 and 20 simply provide further definition to the “climate region data” that is received in claim 1. Simply stating that the climate region data is based on the building data does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this simply defines the type of data that is received.
Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered.
Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101
12. Applicant’s arguments (Amendment, Pgs. 9-11) concerning the prior rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §101, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive for the following reasons. Under the prior and current 101 analysis under 2019 PEG, the amended claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements. The abstract idea has been restated herein in line with the 2019 PEG guidance and the amended claims. Applicant is directed to the above full Alice/Mayo analysis in the 101 rejection.
Additionally, on page 10 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application at least because the claims recite an improvement to the technical field of assessing damage to a building… Receiving and analyzing hail data responsive to detecting the hail (i.e., only when hail is determined to be impacting the building) improves damage assessment by only estimating information relevant to storm damage and assessing potential damage from the hail as quickly as possible, while distinguishing from other types of damage.” Similarly, on pages 10 and 11 of their remarks, the applicant argues, “When the smart home device detects an occurrence of hail, hail data collected by the smart home device is received by one or more processors of a computer system for generating roof damage confidence scores. The hail data is then processed and analyzed (e.g., by estimating an attribute of hail from audio data of the hail) as part of estimating a probable roof damage confidence score. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, ProngTwo.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the examiner notes that simply stating that the hail data is collected “responsive to a smart home device detecting an occurrence of hail” does not amount to a technical improvement to the field of assessing damage to a building. The claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the smart home device detects the occurrence of hail. Therefore, such limitations simply define when the real-time hail data is gathered. Thus, this limitation amounts to no more than mere data gathering, as described in the 101 rejection above. Similarly, the claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the hail data is analyzed. Simply stating that the system estimates the attributes of the hail based on audio data does not provide any indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, such limitations amount to no more than performing basic data analysis, and simply further refine the abstract idea.
Therefore, for at least these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Filson (U.S. Patent No. 9286781): Describes systems, methods, and related computer program products for aggregating measurements obtained from a dynamic network of sensors in order to forecast external events using smart-home devices.
Yager (U.S. Patent No. 11783423): Describes systems and methods that collect and analyze information from connected devices in a home to determine risk, determine rating plans, or generate risk scores from the collected data.
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 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 WILLIAM D NEWLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/WILLIAM D NEWLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights