DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding 101 abstract idea filed on 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 recites home telematics data, user data, a generative AI model, and a predicted user understanding. The claim remains directed to collecting and analyzing information and generating a personalized information output. The claim does not recite an improvement to the generative AI model, sensor technology, or any other technology. The asserted reduction in subsequent queries and computation resources is not a limitation in claim 1 and therefore it is moot. The claim does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding applicant arguments with respect to art rejection, in view of claims amendments, applicant remarks and further search, claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art. Please see prior art allowability analysis below.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
With respect to claim 1.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes—claim 1 recites a method, which is a process.
Step 2A, prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations identified below each, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes abstract idea grouping (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)), see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III and the 2019 PEG, but for the recitation of generic computer components:
“analyzing, (Mental processes- concept of observation and evaluation, wherein analyzing information uses the mental human mind and generating a dialogue output is a form of information presentation. The claim recites collection, analysis, evaluation and generation of information as presentation which falls within the abstract idea but utilizing a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea).
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
“receiving, by one or more processors, (i) home telematics data and (ii) user data for a user at a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, wherein the home telematics data includes home sensor data indicative of regular activity for a property associated with the user;” involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
“a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model” and “, by the one or more processors and using the generative Al model”: 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
“a dialogue output to present to the user”; Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, post solution and data presentation, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No—there are no additional limitations beyond the mental processes identified above. The limitation treated above, are directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It also includes limitations that 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element is insignificant application, which is similar to examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2.
Step 1: A method, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites that “determining, by the one or more processors and based upon at least the home telematics analysis, a likelihood of an insurance event occurring;
wherein the dialogue output includes at least one of (i) information related to the insurance event or (ii) one or more actions to address the insurance event.”: This limitation merely specifies mental processes- concept of observation and evaluation of the analyzed information.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Mere recitation of generic computer components neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor provides an inventive concept.
Claim 3.
Step 1: A method, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites that “wherein the one or more actions include at least one of: (i) one or more preventative actions to prevent the insurance event, (ii) one or more mitigating actions to mitigate damage associated with the insurance event, or (iii) one or more prescriptive actions to fix damage associated with the insurance event.”: This limitation merely specifies mental processes- concept of observation and evaluation of the analyzed information.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Mere recitation of generic computer components neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor provides an inventive concept.
Claim 4.
Step 1: A method, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites that “determining, by the one or more processors, a likelihood of user remembrance for one or more locations for sensor placement; and wherein generating the dialogue output includes: generating, by the one or more processors, one or more recommendations for sensor placement based upon at least the determined likelihood of user remembrance.”: This limitation merely specifies mental processes- concept of observation and evaluation of the analyzed information.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim recites that “obtaining a set of the potential queries;” involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Mere recitation of generic computer components neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor provides an inventive concept.
Claim 5.
Step 1: A method, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites that “determining, by the one or more processors, a likelihood of user maintenance for one or more locations for sensor placement; and
wherein generating the dialogue output includes: generating, by the one or more processors, one or more recommendations for sensor placement based upon at least the determined likelihood of user maintenance.”: This limitation merely specifies mental processes- concept of observation and evaluation of the analyzed information.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Mere recitation of generic computer components neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor provides an inventive concept.
Claim 6.
Step 1: A method, as above.
Step 2A prong 1: same mental abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim recites that “wherein the sensor data includes security system data associated with the property and wherein the dialogue output includes an alert regarding potential intruders.” involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Mere recitation of generic computer components neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor provides an inventive concept.
Claim 7.
Step 1: A method, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites that “comparing, by the one or more processors, the home telematics data to historical home telematics data to detect a difference in behavior; and
determining, by the one or more processors and based upon at least the detected difference in behavior, that unusual activity is occurring on the property; wherein generating the dialogue output is responsive to determining that unusual activity is occurring.”: This limitation merely specifies mental processes- concept of observation and evaluation of the analyzed information.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Mere recitation of generic computer components neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor provides an inventive concept.
Claim 8.
Step 1: A method, as above.
Step 2A prong 1: same mental abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim recites that “wherein the generative AI model includes at least one of: (i) an AI or machine learning (ML) chatbot or (ii) an AI or ML voice bot.” for step 2A Prong 2: 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and also for step 2B: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claims 9-16
Step 1: The claims recite a system; therefore, they fall into the statutory category of machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite the same mental processes as claims 1-8, respectively.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 9-16 recite generic computer components, namely “one or more processors; a communication unit”. As before, the mere recitation that the method is to be performed on a generic computer amounts to a mere instruction to apply the exception on the computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis mirrors that of claims 1-8, respectively.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis, with the one exception noted above, mirrors that of claims 1-8, respectively.
Claims 17-20
Step 1: The claims recite a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium; therefore, they fall into the statutory category of machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims 17-20 recite the same mental processes as claims 1-4, respectively.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 17-20 recite generic computer components, namely “tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for analyzing home telematics data that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device”. As before, the mere recitation that the method is to be performed on a generic computer amounts to a mere instruction to apply the exception on the computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis mirrors that of claims 1-4, respectively.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis, with the one exception noted above, mirrors that of claims 1-4, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101 abstract idea, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
In view of amended claims, applicant response and further search, claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art since the prior art taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest, or render obvious the independent claim as a whole.
In addition, examiner notes, the claims should also be amended to overcome the claim rejections indicated in this Office action; and the claim amendments do not raise new issues that would require an updated rejection of claims.
The closest prior arts, listed below, discloses:
Bohl et al. (US 20240371376 A1) teaches a computer-implemented method for analyzing home telematics data and generating a dialogue output, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by one or more processorssee ¶ 19, “the virtual personal assistant module receives sensor data from one or more sensors and determines a state based on the sensors data. The virtual personal assistant module automatically generates an output, such as natural language speech output, based on the state”, also see ¶ 47, “virtual personal assistant module 234 may process speech data acquired via one or more audio input devices 114 to determine a request (e.g., a question) and/or a concept (e.g., meaning, intent) of the request. Virtual personal assistant module 234 may then determine a response to the request based on sensor data from one or more sensors 116, generate an output (e.g., a speech output) based on the response, and cause the output to be output to a user (e.g., via an audio output device)”, also see ¶ 48, “virtual personal assistant module 234 may process sensor data from one or more sensors 116 to detect a state of the user(s), the vehicle, and/or the environment.”, also ¶ 51 and 85, “a two-way virtual personal assistant system enables a user to interact with a virtual personal assistant to obtain information about an area, such as a vehicle and the surrounding environment or a home and the surrounding environment, monitored by one or more sensors.”); analyzing, by the one or more processors see ¶ 64-66, “analyzes the request text 424 to generate an extracted meaning 426 that represents a meaning or intent of the user who uttered the words represented by the request text 424.”, ¶ 81, “virtual personal assistant system 101 analyzes the text segment to generate an extracted meaning that represents a meaning or intent of the user who uttered the words represented by the text segment.”, and ¶ 88, “obtaining first sensor data from a first sensor included in a plurality of sensors; analyzing the first sensor data to generate a first result; obtaining second sensor data from a second sensor included in the plurality of sensors; analyzing the second sensor data and the first result to generate a second result; and outputting a natural language audio output to the user based on the second result.”); and generating, by the one or more processors see ¶ 20, “The virtual personal assistant determines a request based on the speech event and determines a response to the request based on sensor data obtained from one or more sensors. The virtual personal assistant further generates an output, such as natural language speech output, based on the response to the request.”, also see ¶ 46, “virtual personal assistant module 234 engages with the user(s) of a vehicle via two-way natural language dialog. This two-way natural language dialog includes user(s)-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-user(s) communications. Virtual personal assistant module 234 combines data from internal sensors and data from external sensors to generate inferences about situations occurring within the vehicle and about situations occurring external to the vehicle.”, also see ¶ 46, “virtual personal assistant module 234 engages with the user(s) of a vehicle via two-way natural language dialog. This two-way natural language dialog includes user(s)-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-user(s) communications. Virtual personal assistant module 234 combines data from internal sensors and data from external sensors to generate inferences about situations occurring within the vehicle and about situations occurring external to the vehicle. Further, virtual personal assistant module 234 combines data from internal sensors and data from external sensors to generate predictions or other results regarding the user(s), vehicle, and/or environment.”), wherein the dialogue output is further generated based upon at least a predicted user understanding of the dialogue output (see ¶ 78, “Via these various modules 700, the user(s) interact with virtual personal assistant system 101 in a natural manner based on a wide array of sensor data from sensors 710. As a result, the user(s) receive relevant and timely information in an understandable manner regarding life threatening events 730, better driving experience events 750, and user-to-vehicle information retrieval events 770.”, also see ¶ 46-47, also ¶ 48, “virtual personal assistant module 234 may process sensor data from one or more sensors 116 to detect a state of the user(s), the vehicle, and/or the environment. In some embodiments, virtual personal assistant module 234 may determine whether the state exceeds a threshold. In response to detecting the state (and, in some embodiments, in response to determining that the state exceeds the threshold), virtual personal assistant module 234 generates an output (e.g., a natural language speech output) and causes the output to be output to a user (e.g., via an audio output device).”)
Zhang et al. (“DIALOGPT :Large-Scale Generative Pre-training for Conversational Response Generation”, A collaboration between Microsoft Research and Microsoft Dynamics 365 AI Research, pages 270–278, July 5- July 10, 2020.) teaches using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model (see abstract, “tunable neural conversational response generation model, DIALOGPT (dialogue generative pre-trained transformer).”, also see page 271, “DIALOGPT is formulated as an autoregressive (AR) language model, and uses the multi-layer transformer as model architecture. Unlike GPT-2, however, DIALOGPT is trained on large-scale dialogue pairs/sessions extracted from Reddit discussion chains.”, also see page 271, “OpenAI GPT-2 to model a multiturn dialogue session as a long text and frame the generation task as language modeling.”).
Abramson et al. (US 20180293483 A1) teaches social data may be used to create or modify a special index in the theme of the specific person's personality. The special index may be used to train a chat bot to converse in the personality of the specific person. During such conversations, one or more conversational data stores and/or APIs may be used to reply to user dialogue and/or questions for which the social data does not provide data. In some aspects, a 2D or 3D model of a specific person may be generated using images, depth information, and/or video data associated with the specific person.
Chintakindi et al. (US 20220270176 A1) teaches Home system 340 may collect various components of information associated with a home property, and may send such information to the user computing device 330 and/or the insurance system server 350. Additionally, the home system 340 may further include a plurality of home sensors 341. For example, the home system 340 may include a plurality of appliances and/or systems and one or more of the appliances and/or systems (e.g., devices) may be monitored by a plurality of home sensors 341 (e.g., one or more sensing devices). The plurality of home sensors 341 may monitor one or more features in a home and transmit monitored data to the user computing device 330 and/or the insurance system server 350. For example, a home may generally include a variety of systems, appliances, and the like that may be monitored by the plurality of home sensors 341.
Sanchez et al. (US 12682316 B2) teaches analyze the image data to identify at least one possession, update a user profile to include the identified at least one possession, determine additional information is needed to accurately estimate a value associated with the at least one possession, generate and transmit an additional information prompt to a user computing device, receive, from the user computing device, the additional information, estimate, using the additional information, the value associated with the at least one possession, and update the user profile to include the estimated value associated with the at least one possession stored in association with the at least one possession.
In summary, the references made of record, fail to disclose the required claimed technical features recited by the independent claim limitations as a whole.
The dependent claims, being further limiting to the independent claims, definite, and enable by the Specification would also be considered allowable if the noted rejections were overcome.
Conclusion
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 IMAD M KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2958. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM-5:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Michael J. Huntley can be reached at (303) 297 - 4307. 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.
/IMAD KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights