DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for reconsideration of application 18/096,954 (11/02/22) filed on 7/31/25.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
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
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
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 NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 20 is/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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a process (i.e., computer-implemented method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves training a countertop identification machine learning algorithm by, during a first training phase: receiving a first plurality of images; identifying bounding boxes in images of the first plurality of images, the bounding boxes surrounding countertop depictions in the images; identifying labels for countertop types for the countertop depictions surrounded by the bounding boxes, the countertop type labels including: granite, laminate, quartz, wood, ceramic tile, non-laminate, marble, stainless steel, concrete, and/or unknown; and training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm based upon the labels for the countertop types; further training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm by, during a second training phase:
receiving a second plurality of images, the second plurality of images: (i) including a greater number of images than the first plurality of images, (ii) not including countertop depictions, and (iii) including labeled objects; and further training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm based upon the labeled objects;
receiving an image from a user; identifying a type of a countertop in the image from the user by routing the image from the user into the trained countertop identification machine learning algorithm; and based upon the identified type of countertop: (i) estimating a value of a home, and/or (ii) determining a homeowners insurance premium, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (identifying a type of countertop in an image from a user; based upon the identified type of countertop, (i) estimating a value of a home, and/or (ii) determining a homeowners insurance premium); commercial or legal interactions (identifying a type of countertop in an image from a user; based upon the identified type of countertop, (i) estimating a value of a home, and/or (ii) determining a homeowners insurance premium); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (training, receiving, identifying, routing, estimating, determining, etc.).
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “computer-implemented” (preamble only); “one or more processors”) does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to training a countertop identification machine learning algorithm by, during a first training phase: receiving a first plurality of images; identifying bounding boxes in images of the first plurality of images, the bounding boxes surrounding countertop depictions in the images; identifying labels for countertop types for the countertop depictions surrounded by the bounding boxes, the countertop type labels including: granite, laminate, quartz, wood, ceramic tile, non-laminate, marble, stainless steel, concrete, and/or unknown; and training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm based upon the labels for the countertop types; further training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm by, during a second training phase: receiving a second plurality of images, the second plurality of images: (i) including a greater number of images than the first plurality of images, (ii) not including countertop depictions, and (iii) including labeled objects; and further training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm based upon the labeled objects;
receiving an image from a user; identifying a type of a countertop in the image from the user by routing the image from the user into the trained countertop identification machine learning algorithm; and based upon the identified type of countertop: (i) estimating a value of a home, and/or (ii) determining a homeowners insurance premium.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. Although the claim refers to “one or more processors”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually training a countertop identification machine learning algorithm by, during a first training phase: receiving a first plurality of images; identifying bounding boxes in images of the first plurality of images, the bounding boxes surrounding countertop depictions in the images; identifying labels for countertop types for the countertop depictions surrounded by the bounding boxes, the countertop type labels including: granite, laminate, quartz, wood, ceramic tile, non-laminate, marble, stainless steel, concrete, and/or unknown; and training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm based upon the labels for the countertop types; further training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm by, during a second training phase: receiving a second plurality of images, the second plurality of images: (i) including a greater number of images than the first plurality of images, (ii) not including countertop depictions, and (iii) including labeled objects; and further training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm based upon the labeled objects; receiving an image from a user; identifying a type of a countertop in the image from the user by routing the image from the user into the trained countertop identification machine learning algorithm; and based upon the identified type of countertop: (i) estimating a value of a home, and/or (ii) determining a homeowners insurance premium. NOTE: (a) The claims are exclusively from the perspective of the “one or more processors”.
The mere nominal recitation of technology (e.g., “computer-implemented” (preamble only); “one or more processors”) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “computer-implemented” (preamble only) and “by one or more processors”/ “via one or more processors” in the positively recites steps or acts. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “routing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “training”, “identifying”, “estimating”, “determining”, etc. step(s) as claimed). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering image data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 01/13/23 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Khosravan and Dua operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “routing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “training”, “identifying”, “estimating”, “determining”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “routing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “training”, “identifying”, “estimating”, “determining”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 8 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent computer system claim 9 and independent computer device claim 17 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The components (e.g., “one or more processors”) described in independent computer system claim 9 and the components (e.g., “one or more processors”, “one or more memories”) described in independent computer device claim 17, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product (computer system; computer device) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10 - 16 and 18 - 20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Response to Arguments
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1.Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
First, applicant’s claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Fundamental economic principles or practices relate to the economy and commerce. The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to insurance (e.g., identifying a type of countertop in an image from a user; based upon the identified type of countertop, (i) estimating a value of a home, and/or (ii) determining a homeowners insurance premium) and valuation (e.g., identifying a type of countertop in an image from a user; based upon the identified type of countertop, (i) estimating a value of a home, and/or (ii) determining a homeowners insurance premium). This interpretation is consistent with the prosecution history of the instant application.
For example, para. [0002] of applicant’s specification as filed 01/13/23 states:
[0002] The present disclosure generally relates to, inter alia: (i) identifying a type of countertop in a home, and/or (ii) using a type of countertop to estimate a value of a home and/or determine a homeowners insurance premium.
See also, at least claims 1, 6, 9, 14 and 17 as filed (7/31/25).
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention relates to insurance (e.g., identifying a type of countertop in an image from a user; based upon the identified type of countertop, (i) estimating a value of a home, and/or (ii) determining a homeowners insurance premium) and valuation (e.g., identifying a type of countertop in an image from a user; based upon the identified type of countertop, (i) estimating a value of a home, and/or (ii) determining a homeowners insurance premium). Insurance and valuation, in the instant scenario, pertains to agreements in the form of “contracts”, “legal obligations”, “sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations”.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., training, receiving, identifying, routing, estimating, determining, etc.).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “identifying ….. bounding boxes in images of the first plurality of images, the bounding boxes surrounding countertop depictions in the images; identifying ….. labels for countertop types for the countertop depictions surrounded by the bounding boxes, the countertop type labels including: granite, laminate, quartz, wood, ceramic tile, non-laminate, marble, stainless steel, concrete, and/or unknown”; “identifying ….. a type of a countertop in the image from the user by routing the image from the user into the trained countertop identification machine learning algorithm;” and “based upon the identified type of countertop, ….. : (i) estimating a value of a home, and/or (ii) determining a homeowners insurance premium.”) which are examples of mental processes.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Although claims 1 - 20 suggest the steps or acts occur on a computer (i.e., “by one or more processors” and “via the one or more processors” in computer-implemented method claims 1 - 8; “one or more processors” in computer system claims 9 - 16; “one or more processors” and “one or more memories” in computer device claims 17 - 20), nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Second, applicant’s claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (e.g., “ improves the technical functioning of the machine learning algorithm itself”). See pg. 9 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 01/06/25. The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
Applicant’s “improvements” actually contemplated:
See para. [0002] of applicant’s specification as filed 01/13/23 which states:
[0002] The present disclosure generally relates to, inter alia: (i) identifying a type of countertop in a home, and/or (ii) using a type of countertop to estimate a value of a home and/or determine a homeowners insurance premium.
See also, at least claims 1, 6, 9, 14 and 17 as filed (7/31/25).
Insurance and valuation are directed to the underlying abstract idea, not the functioning of the computer itself. With respect to machine learning, applicant’s claimed invention does not provide an improvement to machine learning itself. Applicant claimed invention is merely using or applying machine learning to insurance and valuation. What applicant is really arguing is the use of a computer as a tool or the benefits of automation itself.
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not
not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05(f).
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, many of the features applicant relies upon are “insignificant”. For example, they amount to “necessary data gathering and outputting” (e.g., “receiving, by one or more processors, a first plurality of images”; “receiving, by the one or more processors, a second plurality of images, the second plurality of images: (i) including a greater number of images than the first plurality of images, (ii) not including countertop depictions, and (iii) including labeled objects”; “receiving, by the one or more processors, an image from a user” and “routing the image from the user into the trained countertop identification machine learning algorithm”). For example, they pertain to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, such as the claimed invention’s focus on countertops (e.g., “training a countertop identification machine learning algorithm by, during a first training phase”; “identifying ….. labels for countertop types for the countertop depictions surrounded by the bounding boxes, the countertop type labels including: granite, laminate, quartz, wood, ceramic tile, non-laminate, marble, stainless steel, concrete, and/or unknown”; “training ….. the countertop identification machine learning algorithm based upon the labels for the countertop types”; “further training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm by, during a second training phase”; “further training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm based upon the labeled objects”; and “identifying ….. a type of a countertop in the image from the user”).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “receiving ….. a first plurality of images”; “receiving ….. a second plurality of images, the second plurality of images: (i) including a greater number of images than the first plurality of images, (ii) not including countertop depictions, and (iii) including labeled objects”; “receiving ….. an image from a user”; and “routing the image from the user into the trained countertop identification machine learning algorithm.”); and analyzing it (e.g., “training a countertop identification machine learning algorithm by, during a first training phase”; “identifying ….. bounding boxes in images of the first plurality of images, the bounding boxes surrounding countertop depictions in the images; identifying ….. labels for countertop types for the countertop depictions surrounded by the bounding boxes, the countertop type labels including: granite, laminate, quartz, wood, ceramic tile, non-laminate, marble, stainless steel, concrete, and/or unknown; and training ….. the countertop identification machine learning algorithm based upon the labels for the countertop types;
further training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm by, during a second training phase”; “further training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm based upon the labeled objects”; “identifying ….. a type of a countertop in the image from the user …..; and based upon the identified type of countertop, …..: (i) estimating a value of a home, and/or (ii) determining a homeowners insurance premium.”) merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
2.Applicant argues the claimed invention is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional”.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 01/13/23 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Khosravan and Dua operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “routing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “training”, “identifying”, “estimating”, “determining”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, “routing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “training”, “identifying”, “estimating”, “determining”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 8 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent computer system claim 9 and independent computer device claim 17 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The components (e.g., “one or more processors”) described in independent computer system claim 9 and the components (e.g., “one or more processors”, “one or more memories”) described in independent computer device claim 17, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product (computer system; computer device) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10 - 16 and 18 - 20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
3.Applicant argues Example 47. In particular, applicant argues the claimed invention is closer to Example, claim 3 than Example 47, claim 2.
Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to the rationale that the claimed invention demonstrates “integration into a practical application” because it provides “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or field” and because of comparisons to Example 47, claim 3 which was found eligible based on a similar rationale. Examiner disagrees.
The facts associated with the claimed invention are more aligned with Example 47, claim 2 from the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples which were found to be ineligible.
For example, the claimed invention (independent claim 1 and dependents thereof) refers to the steps or acts being performed “by one or more processors” or “via the one or more processors”. For example, the claimed invention (independent claims 9, 17 and dependents thereof) refers to the steps or acts being performed by components (e.g., “one or more processors”) of a “computer system” or “computer device”. This language is very similar to the “at a computer” and “by the computer” language recited in Example 47, claim 2. In Example 47, claim 2 this language was considered to be recited at a high level of generality i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or an equivalent of an “apply it” rational are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (f).
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
For example, the claimed invention refers to “training a countertop identification machine learning algorithm by, during a first training phase”; “training, via the one or more processors, the countertop identification machine learning algorithm based upon the labels for the countertop types”; “further training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm by, during a second training phase”; “further training the countertop identification machine learning algorithm based upon the labeled objects”; and “routing the image from the user into the trained countertop identification machine learning algorithm”. See independent claims 1, 9 and 17. This language is very similar to the “using the trained ANN” and “outputting the anomaly data from the trained ANN” recited in Example 47, claim 2. In Example 47, claim 2 this language was determined not to provide any details about how the trained artificial neural network (ANN) operates and merely provided a generic output.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
With respect to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention provides a “technology-improving application for a machine learning algorithm”. See pg. 10 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 7/31/25. The examiner disagrees. With respect to machine learning, applicant’s claimed invention does not provide an improvement to machine learning itself. Applicant claimed invention is merely using or applying machine learning to insurance and valuation.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention “integrates the machine learning process into a practical application that improves a technical field here, the fields of home appraisal and insurance risk assessment-by making more accurate the identification and valuation of property features based upon image data.” See pg. 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 7/31/25. The examiner disagrees. What applicant describes is not a “technical field”, applicant’s reference to the “fields of home appraisal and insurance risk assessment” is another way of describing the abstract ideas (e.g., insurance, valuation) discussed above. The claimed invention is not like Example 47, claim 3 which applicant acknowledges was eligible because it “ties the use of an ANN to a real-world technical improvement in network security by automatically taking remedial actions in response to detected threats.” See pg. 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 7/31/25. The claimed invention is more like Example 47, claim 2 which applicant acknowledges was ineligible because
there was “no integration into a broader technical solution or system”. See pg. 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 7/31/25.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention provides, “specific additional elements that amount to an improvement in technology” because it “uses the countertop type identified by machine learning not merely to output data, but to estimate home value and/or determine insurance premium”. See pg. 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 7/31/25. The examiner disagrees. As noted above, what applicant describes is not an “improvement”, but involves generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claimed invention is not like Example 47, claim 3 which applicant acknowledges was eligible because “it does not stop at anomaly detection, but proceeds to actively alter the state of the computer/network by dropping malicious packets and blocking their source-a technical improvement over prior art approaches.” See pg. 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 7/31/25. The claimed invention is more like Example 47, claim 2 which applicant acknowledges was ineligible because it “does not include technical steps that transform an abstract result into a meaningful or improved technological process”. See pg. 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 7/31/25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and relates to machine learning and real estate.
Conway, Jennifer Jennifer Elizabeth. "Artificial intelligence and machine learning: Current applications in real estate." (2018).
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 SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, 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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695