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 Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered June 23, 2025 for the patent application 18/257,870.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 16 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 4 and 12 are currently amended in the application.
Response to Arguments
Examiner would like to point out that the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. described seven rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
“Obvious to try” –choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations; however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.” see Dann v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976).
Applicant's arguments filed with an Amendment on June 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument:
“Too, the claims do not meet the definition of an "abstract idea" under the second grouping where the claims fail to include "certain methods of organizing human activity" as the claims do not relate to fundamental economic principles or practices,
commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people - most especially "as a fundamental economic practice" as identified in the Non-Final Office Action, page 6. On the contrary, present application references "economics" only with reference to "failings" in the art where deficiencies remain and attempts to provide an "economical means of identifying, defining, and assessing loss condition(s)" in claims adjustment in remedying property loss. (para. 0006) More specifically, the present application is concerned, broadly, more so with the analysis of property "loss" resulting from observable condition changes which has an economic result but is not the purpose of the present method and system and cannot be said to be a "fundamental" or even majority purpose or goal of inventor.“. (see page 14 of the Remarks).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance states that a category of abstract ideas is a "Fundamental Economic Practice", which are concepts relating to the economy and commerce, such as agreements between people in the form of contracts, legal obligations, and business relations. A spatial analysis method for determining loss via inspecting structures, property and related areas for conditions and condition changes, falls under the category of concepts relating to business relations and commerce. Abstract ideas are not limited to ideas that may be characterized as economic principles; nor are abstract ideas limited to the examples set forth in Alice, i.e., fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and mathematical relationships or formulae. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350, 2356. The additional elements of the source device are being used as tool to implement the identified abstract idea. Furthermore these additional elements are generally linking the use of the judicial exception (the identified abstract idea) to a particular technological environment (centralized database) or a field of use (data processing). Therefore, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, and as such do not impose a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice, 134 S. Gt, at 2380 (claims that recite general-purpose computer components are nevertheless ’’directed to" an abstract idea): Content Extraction, 778 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner" are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc, v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an "interface," "network," and a "database" are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea). Similar response apply to system Claim 12.
Applicant Argument:
“However, should Examiner maintain Examiner's initial determination and hold that the claims do indeed recite an abstract idea, Applicants advance that the claims satisfy patent eligibility under 35 USC IO I under Prong Two of revised step 2A where the claims, as a whole, and as amended, certainly meet the judicial exception and integrate the determined judicial exception into a practical application of this judicial
exception.“. (see page 18 of the Remarks).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2A requires the analysis of prong one, does it recite an abstract ideal, prong two, is it directed to an abstract idea. Prong two has to be a technological improvement (integrate the abstract idea into a practical application). The claims are not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus, only a general purpose computer. As we have previously held, the Internet is not sufficient to save the patent under the machine prong of the machine-or-transformation test. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1370. It is a ubiquitous information-transmitting medium, not a novel machine. And adding a computer to otherwise conventional steps does not make an invention patent-eligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Any transformation from the use of computers or the transfer of content between computers is merely what computers do and does not change the analysis. Similar response apply to system Claim 12.
Applicant Argument:
“Applicants extend that under either Prong 2 Step 2A or Prong Three (Step 2B) of the Alice/Mayo test, regardless of findings, Applicants' invention should be found patent-eligible where the present invention both (1) represents "specific improvements over prior systems" and (2) provides "significantly more" than the judicial exception, respectively.“. (see page 19 of the Remarks).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the claims included individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the “computer itself,” "another technology,” the "technical field,” or significantly more than what is “well-understood, routine, or conventional” in the related arts. The USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance lists included tables and appendices examples of what has been considered by the Courts to be generic computer functioning and not “significantly more” than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of endeavor. These examples, a non-exhaustive illustrative list, constitute the basis for the findings below. In step two as per Alice, consideration of the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” is set forth to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Similar response apply to system Claim 12.
Applicant Argument:
“The present system (and method of use), as in Bascom, clearly advances an improvement in the technical filed of "filtering" whereby Applicant's steps of gathering, collecting inspection (condition) data, meteorological (event) data, manufacturer data, time data and public and private descriptions are aggregated and categorized (i.e., filtered) for storage into a centralized repository for the additional step of a comparative analysis of current data with historical data to determine a causal relationship, or non-causal relationship, between weather event data and property loss or damage.“. (see page 23 of the Remarks).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the case of Bascom, it was found patent eligible because the ordered combination was directed toward solving a problem arising in the realm of computer networks, providing a solution rooted in computer technology. BASCOM provided a filtering of content that was not independent of the internet. The ordered combination of elements as set forth by BASCOM, describe a customized filtering tool with customizable features specific to each end user. This is not the case in the current application. The centralized database within a single location is a well understood routine function. The claimed steps as a combination do not provide specific details on how the storage a data is set forth beyond identifying orders that are unrelated. There are no specific limitations as set forth in BASCOM that when considered as a whole improve technology or computer functionality. Rather the claimed elements when considered as a whole are directed toward solving a financial problem. The rejection is maintained. Similar response apply to system Claim 12.
Applicant Argument:
“Further, in a more exemplary form, Example 42 of Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 37-423 of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is particularly informative where, as here, the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception of a "method of organizing human activity" through management of "interactions between people" is the basis of applying the Alice/Mayo test to an Abstract Idea. Applicant/Inventor of the "network-based patient management method" of Example 42 have been determined to provide the additional elements of "including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users.“. (see page 24 of the Remarks).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Example 42, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of storing and updating patient information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing medical records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Similar response apply to system Claim 12.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 - 16 are either directed to a method or system or computer readable medium, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to system claim 12. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
( A ) gathering meteorological data related to a specific weather event or historic events;
( B ) gathering time data related to a specific weather event;
( C ) gathering public images, private images or a combination thereof;
( D ) said images being photographic images, videographic images or a combination thereof;
( E ) gathering public written descriptions, private written descriptions, or a combination thereof, related to a particular structure, related property or both;
( F ) conducting a visual, on-site conditions inspection of a condition or conditions of elements of a structure, a property, or a combination thereof;
( G ) said inspection consisting of captured photographic images, videographic images or a combination thereof;
( H ) said inspection further consisting of verbal descriptions of condition's location, extent, degree or the absence of condition;
( I ) said inspection further consisting of written descriptions of condition's location, extent, degree, or the absence of conditions;
( J ) collecting inspection data comprising images and descriptions;
( K ) recording said inspection data;
( L ) combining said event-specific meteorological data, event-specific weather time data, public and private images and descriptions of said structures and related property, and visual, on-site inspection data into a centralized database as data points;
( M ) said centralized database comprised of current and historical data points;
( N ) compiling said specific weather event meteorological data, specific weather event time data, public and private images and descriptions of said structures and related property, and visual, on- site inspection data as said data points into a single forensic analysis conditions report;
( O ) analyzing said current data points in relation to historical data points;
( P ) comparing current data points in relation to historical data points;
( Q ) displaying said forensic analysis conditions report visually and in written form via an interactive, accessible display;
( R ) establishing causative relation between structural and property conditions, changes in structural and property conditions, or a combination thereof, to said specific weather event or events.
These limitations without the bolded limitations above, cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
More specifically, these limitations cover performance of the limitations as a fundamental economic practice.
In summary, if claim 1 limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
The use of a central depository or any of the bolded limitations in claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Similar arguments apply to claims 12.
Therefore, the above mentioned judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by merely applying generic computer components (bolded elements).
Furthermore, the “gathering” and “collecting” steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering/transmitting, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In addition, supported by specification, the computer hardware are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component., see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer is not indicative of a practical application).
Claim 1, limitation ( L ) and ( M ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0124], which discloses “Therefore, is the stated goal of the present invention to accurately collect, preserve, document, analyze, and present data associated with properties, buildings, or valuable assets in a novel accessible and centralized database that allows for principals to utilize a graphically interactive model to dynamically select and retrieve desired information based on visual electronic cues that graphically depict physical conditions on the property, structures, or valuable assets. Through the resultant spatial analysis model (SAM), interested parties accessing data may more quickly, efficiently and accurately retrieve information, interpret the data, and/or make decisions based on the data in real time through the SAM process which exhibits a vast improvement over traditional methods which result, historically, in costly delays in acquiring and interpreting data.“.
Also, claim 1, limitation ( M ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0113], which discloses “It is another preferred embodiment to provide a system for examining structures and related areas for changes or no changes in property conditions, through (1) externally and internally captured images, (2) external and internal manual inspection(s), (3) instrument measurement, (4) publicly and/or privately available property descriptions, and (5) publicly and/or privately available data images, in conjunction with (6) meteorological data, to provide a forensic analysis of conditions causes and derivation. Said analysis procurement includes imaging from imaging devices, analytical instrumentation measurements, inspection reports and a historical repository of collected related categories of property conditions incident types compared and compiled into a single opinion assessing property conditions extent, conditions derivation and primary and secondary causes.“.
Also, claim 1, limitation ( Q ) above in Applicant’s specification para [0107], which discloses “What is more, as in FIG. 22, the present SAM system allows for "mouseover" ("roll over") and "point and-click" access to individual units, subunits and areas. The mouseover is defined by a graphic control element that is "activated" or accessible when the user moves or hovers above a particular unit, subunit or area and selects its content. These subdivided areas may also provide a preview of the accessible area wherein the special usage of a mouseover creates a related "preview" or "tooltip" (a.k.a. an "infotip" or "hint") which is a GUI element allowing for information to be displayed wherein simply moving the pointer tip to the designated area, without clicking or selecting the area, provides a text box or image box (e.g., a balloon) describing an abbreviated information set (e.g., unit or ID number, conditions type, conditions location, inspection time and/or truncated annotated conditions notes and the like). In FIG. 22, the identified unit on the 13th floor is designated 'ID 27' and has the label of 'Interior inspection Complete' signifying to the consumer that the inspector or inspectors have completed their inspection and that the report is accessible. Further, this abbreviated text or image box may be displayed so long as a cursor or pointer "hovers" over the component or element, without selecting, said component or element. What is more the text box or image may contain one to a plurality of "nested" tooltips or tooltips which overlap into multiple layered tooltips.“. Similar arguments apply to claims 12.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 1 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims 1 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (bolded elements above) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. In conclusion, merely "applying" the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 – 11 and 13 - 16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claims 2 – 11 and 13 - 16 are further define the abstract idea or further define the extra-solution activities that are present in independent claim 1 thus abstract idea correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity as presented above. Claims 2 – 11 and 13 - 16 clearly further define the abstract idea as stated above and further define extra-solution activities such as presenting data and transmitting/receiving data.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 11 and 13 - 16 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Regarding claim 2, this claim merely provide further detail regarding the processing the loss, recited in claim 1. Merely stating, “wherein said specific weather event may be any present or past weather event exhibiting high-wind velocities, rain, hail, debris or a combination thereof..”. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 3, this claim merely recite, "wherein inspection data may include observational data, verbal data, written data, analytical data, instrumentation measurements of a structure, property or area.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 4, this claim merely recite, "wherein condition or conditions conformational changes or no change comprises: structural conditions; interior structural conditions; exterior structural conditions; foundation conditions; HVAC conditions; fenestrations: fractured glazing, loose glazing, fogged glazing, scratched/etched glazing or a combination thereof; fenestration assemblies: bent fenestration frames, bowed fenestration frames, dislodged fenestration frames, dented fenestration frames, or a combination thereof; infiltrated water existence or non-existence within a structure; extent of water existence, if present; manufacture-related defects; installation defects; wear-related defects; age-related defects; and historical conditions or repair and disrepair.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 5, this claim merely recite, "wherein the location, degree, extent, or a combination thereof, may be observed, measured, collected, recorded, categorized, processed, and stored in a centralized database and presented for consumer access, analysis and review.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 6, this claim merely provide further detail regarding the processing the loss, recited in claim 1. Merely stating, "wherein said water existence may be infiltrated water in the form of a liquid, a gas or combination thereof.“. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7, this claim merely provide further detail regarding the processing the loss, recited in claim 1. Merely stating, "wherein water may be associated with a fractured glazing or an intact glazing signifying a storm created opening or a wind driven rain event, respectively.“. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 8, this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, claim 8 states that “wherein said visual, on-site conditions inspection of a condition or conditions, or change in conditions, of elements of a structure, a property, or a combination thereof, is conducted by a technician or plurality of technicians utilizing a site-specific set of queries explicit to a particular inspection site.“. This step amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See M PEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Such 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 data gathering to be well understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): GIP 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)).
Regarding claim 9, this claim merely recite, "wherein collected weather, time and condition or conditions data is displayed to an information consumer in both visual and written forms in an informational interactive format.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 10, this claim merely recite additional steps that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, claim 10 states, "wherein said information may be presented spatially within a representation of the structure, property, or combination thereof, whereby the information consumer may be informed as to condition or conditions, incidences, degrees, extents, locations, or absence thereof, diagrammatically and interactively.“. This step amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See M PEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Such 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 data gathering to be well- understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): GIP 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)).
Regarding claim 11, this claim merely provide further detail regarding the processing the loss, recited in claim 1. Merely stating, "wherein said structure or property representation may have more detailed information embedded within areas of its construct accessible via mouseover and tooltip.“. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 13, this claim merely provide further detail regarding the processing the loss, recited in claim 1. Merely stating, "wherein said condition, conditions or change in condition or conditions comprise the following structural elements: fenestrations, glazing, fenestration frames, doors, windows, balcony railings, guard railing, balcony tile, flooring, light fixtures, outlet covers, vent covers, exit signs, fire safety equipment; and consequential elements: moisture and water filtration.“. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 14, this claim merely provide further detail regarding the processing the loss, recited in claim 1. Merely stating, "wherein condition or condition changes may be due to a specific weather- related event, a past weather related event, age, wear, improper installation, manufacturer / manufacturing defects, latent defects, due to a non-weather-related event or absent.“. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 15, this claim merely recite, "wherein said collected data may be presented in a visual display, a written format, or both, for condition or conditions review and analysis as to determine condition or conditions presence, absence, location, degree, occurrence rates, extent and causation.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 16, this claim merely recite, "wherein causation may be determined by taking into consideration meteorological data including wind direction and velocity, the orientation of an inspected structure or property, the windward and leeward sides of a structure, conditions present, absence of conditions, distribution of conditions, location of conditions, extent and degree of conditions, groupings of conditions and relativity to the presence of absence of all other conditions.“. These limitation merely recites storing data in a server which amounts to no more than gathering/storing data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(g)(3)(iii): GIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it has been determined, by the courts, that the concept of storing data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II): Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
As a result, such limitations do not overcome the requirements as described above. Therefore, claims 2 – 11 and 13 - 16 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 - 16 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cleburne Burgess et al. (Pat. # US 10,387,961 B1 – herein referred to as Burgess) in view of Chris Barrow et al. (Pub. # US 2017/0242873 A1 – herein referred to as Barrow).
Re: Claim 1, Burgess discloses a spatial analysis method for determining loss via inspecting structures, property and related areas for conditions and condition changes comprising:
gathering meteorological data related to a specific weather event or historic events (Burgess, col. 6, lines 9 – 17 – Weather database 155 may include weather information such as weather intensity profiles and weather duration profiles that can be used by the catastrophic event manager 160 in predicting a catastrophic event, estimating property losses and resource needs, and allocating the resources. The weather database 155 may include future weather data (weather predictions) and weather data associated with weather events that already occurred.);
gathering time data related to a specific weather event (Burgess, col. 6, lines 17 – 19 – the weather database 155 may include batch data communications and/or real time feeds of various weather information.);
gathering public images, private images or a combination thereof (Burgess, Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 57 – 67 – image capture device 135 to be used for capturing images of the home/property.);
said images being photographic images, videographic images or a combination thereof (Burgess, col. 5, lines 57 – 58 – (image capture device 135 may be any device that is capable of capturing an image or video of insured property.);
gathering public written descriptions, private written descriptions, or a combination thereof, related to a particular structure, related property or both (Burgess, col. 5, lines 6 – 12 – (a collaboration center that allows for the sharing site video, photos, documents, messages, spreadsheets, and other documents used by the insurance provider to process the claims which may include written descriptions or notes of the property or damage.);
conducting a visual, on-site conditions inspection of a condition or conditions of elements of a structure, a property, or a combination thereof (Burgess, col. 4, lines 41 – 43 – (some types of damage may require an insurance adjustor to physically come to the property to make an assessment.);
said inspection consisting of captured photographic images, videographic images or a combination thereof (Burgess, col. 5, lines 6 – 12 – the private collaboration center being used to store images taken by image capture device 135 or other devices capable of gathering images or video.);
said inspection further consisting of verbal descriptions of condition's location, extent, degree or the absence of condition (Burgess, col. 5, lines 6 – 12 – In some embodiments, a private collaboration center such as an internet website may be created for all personnel involved in supporting the operations of a specific weather event, both in the field and in the home office. This collaboration center may allow for the sharing of site video, photos, documents, messages, spreadsheets, and other documents used by the insurance provider to process the claims.);
said inspection further consisting of written descriptions of condition's location, extent, degree, or the absence of conditions (Burgess, col. 5, lines 6 – 12 – In some embodiments, a private collaboration center such as an internet website may be created for all personnel involved in supporting the operations of a specific weather event, both in the field and in the home office. This collaboration center may allow for the sharing of site video, photos, documents, messages, spreadsheets, and other documents used by the insurance provider to process the claims.);
collecting inspection data comprising images and descriptions (Burgess, col. 5, lines 6 – 12 – the collection of data may be done by any personnel involved using any of the aforementioned methods and stored in the private collaboration center.);
recording said inspection data (Burgess, Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 6 – 9 – insurance provider can be communicably coupled to a network 140, catastrophic event manager 160, and databases such as weather database 155, and customer database 150.);
displaying said forensic analysis conditions report visually and in written form via an interactive, accessible display (Burgess, col. 11, lines 5 – 10 – GUI generation module 295 allows for interaction with the user, allowing the user to track claims status, report losses, and/or otherwise receive or convey information to the user.);
establishing causative relation between structural and property conditions, changes in structural and property conditions, or a combination thereof, to said specific weather event or events (Burgess, col. 4, lines 29 – 35 – catastrophic event manager 160 may use weather information from the weather database 155 and customer information from the customer database 150 to proactively respond to impending or incurred property losses from catastrophic events by acquiring weather data associated with the event, estimating the severity of the losses caused by the event.); (Burgess, col. 12, lines 45 – 58 - In the example shown in FIG. 7, a geographical area affected by a weather event may be divided into portions (e.g., IA 1, IA 2, IA 3, and IA 4). In each portion, losses have occurred due to the weather event. In some embodiments, the portions may be quadrants. Based on the severity of the loss, weather information, information about the customer, etc., the losses will be assigned to the appropriate provider. In an example, every loss in one portion (e.g., IA 1) may be assigned to Adjustor 1 unless a loss (or loss within specific area of a portion) is assigned a higher and/or different severity code, in which case the loss is assigned to one or more different adjustors (e.g., Staff 1, Staff 2, PDRP 1, PDRP 2) based on the severity and type of damage and the expertise of the adjustors.).
However, Burgess does not expressly disclose:
combining said event-specific meteorological data, event-specific weather time data, public and private images and descriptions of said structures and related property, and visual, on-site inspection data into a centralized database as data points;
said centralized database comprised of current and historical data points;
compiling said specific weather event meteorological data, specific weather event time data, public and private images and descriptions of said structures and related property, and visual, on- site inspection data as said data points into a single forensic analysis conditions report;
analyzing said current data points in relation to historical data points;
comparing current data points in relation to historical data points.
In a similar field of endeavor, Barrow discloses:
combining said event-specific meteorological data, event-specific weather time data, public and private images and descriptions of said structures and related property, and visual, on-site inspection data into a centralized database as data points (Barrow, [0031] - Improvements characteristic data may include descriptions of one or more buildings on that point; utilities such as water, sewer, electricity or gas running under, though, or over that point; building permits issued or denied, blueprints, on-site photos, videos, inspections, and stop work and other notices. It may include terrain information such as fill added. In addition, land information associated with the point, but not directly on the point, may include power pole locations, hydrant locations, high-voltage trans mission line placement, erosion effects, and vegetation changes. Also, features associated below the point may also be included such as caves, water reserves, mineral deposits, oil reserves or natural gas reserves. Improvement characteristics data may also include analysis in condition data for structures related to the point. For example, reports showing building conditions, such as type of building, square foot age, type of materials used in construction, current condition of aspects of the property such as exterior wall conditions, roof conditions and associated roof reports, the results of on-site inspections and analysis, etc.);
said centralized database comprised of current and historical data points (Barrow, [0047] - The collected data may be aggregated, centralized, stored and accessed in a number of different ways in various embodiments. Processing of incoming data may be accomplished by a processor 106. In one embodiment, the integrated database 102 may consist of one database with multiple data sets which may span multiple physical machines and physical disk drives, where all information collected about all points on the earth is replicated and stored. This way, all of the known and available information as of the most current time of receipt (e.g., from web crawler 108, image crawler 110 and/or data feeds 112) may be immediately retrieved from the database and presented to the user.);
compiling said specific weather event meteorological data, specific weather event time data, public and private images and descriptions of said structures and related property, and visual, on- site inspection data as said data points into a single forensic analysis conditions report (Barrow, [0031] - Improvements characteristic data may include descriptions of one or more buildings on that point; utilities such as water, sewer, electricity or gas running under, though, or over that point; building permits issued or denied, blueprints, on-site photos, videos, inspections, and stop work and other notices. It may include terrain information such as fill added. In addition, land information associated with the point, but not directly on the point, may include power pole locations, hydrant locations, high-voltage trans mission line placement, erosion effects, and vegetation changes. Also, features associated below the point may also be included such as caves, water reserves, mineral deposits, oil reserves or natural gas reserves. Improvement characteristics data may also include analysis in condition data for structures related to the point. For example, reports showing building conditions, such as type of building, square foot age, type of materials used in construction, current condition of aspects of the property such as exterior wall conditions, roof conditions and associated roof reports, the results of on-site inspections and analysis, etc.);
analyzing said current data points in relation to historical data points (Barrow, [0055] - The data item 410 may further be analyzed by the processor 106 to determine relevant geocoding 140. In some embodiments, the location 132 attribute and the date 134 attribute may be combined to produce one or more geocoded locations identified by latitude/longitude. In this way, information 130 associated with a named location 132 that represents different areas at different dates can be properly identified with specific points on the earth. For example, tax information associated with the address 199 Dry Creek Road, Napa, Calif. 94558 in 1968 may have referred to a 10-acre parcel of farm land, where the same address today may refer to a single family home that was subdivided from the 10 acres in 1989. In this example, the date 1968 together with the address would identify a range of geocoded locations to which 1968 tax information would be relevant, which is different than the geocoded locations associated with any current tax information. Therefore, in these embodiments, an updated data item 410 may include-in addition to information 130, location identifier 132 and date 134-a category 146 and one or more (e.g., a range of) geocoded coordinates 150.);
comparing current data points in relation to historical data points (Barrow, [0061] - At block 172, the processor 106 analyzes the data item 410 to determine one or more applicable categories 146 to which the data item 410 pertains or should be associated with. The processor 106 may employ various techniques for analyzing and determining applicable categories. For example, the processor 106 may analyze the information 130 and/or location description 132 included in the received data item 410, which may include, for example, textual information describing the location. The processor 106 may utilize any textual or other information processing techniques, including for example heuristic processes, to determine one or more categories 146 relevant to the data item 410.).
Therefore, in light of the teachings of Barrow, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Burgess, motivation according to one KSR Exemplary Rationale where a known technique is used to improve similar methods and systems in the same way by providing a user can input a query about a location on the earth and
receive, from a single database and single server, all activities and information associated with that location, sorted by date and type of activity/information.
Re: Claim 2, Burgess discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein said specific weather event may be any present or past weather event exhibiting high-wind velocities, rain, hail, debris or a combination thereof (Burgess, col. 7, lines 44 – 47 – weather acquisition module 220 can acquire data before, during, and after a catastrophic weather event such as a hail, tornado, hurricane, etc..).
Re: Claim 3, Burgess discloses the method of claim 2
wherein inspection data may include observational data, verbal data, written data, analytical data, instrumentation measurements of a structure, property or area (Burgess, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 6 – 9 – the inspection data may come from the weather database, image capture devices, personal computers, mobile phones, dedicated terminals, or customer database.).
Re: Claim 4, Burgess discloses the method of claim 3 wherein condition or conditions conformational changes or no change comprises:
structural conditions (Burgess, col. 4, lines 16 – 2 – the amount of damage and type of damage may be estimated based on information regarding the weather event, which may include statistics and distributions.);
interior structural conditions (Burgess, cols. 10 - 11, lines 63 – 4 – In some embodiments, images are taken of insured properties in the geographical area prior to the weather event, and those images may be used to verify that the reported property losses were caused by the weather event. For example, a fraudulent report may be identified if a satellite);
exterior structural conditions (Burgess, col. 4, lines 16 – 2 – the amount of damage and type of damage may be estimated based on information regarding the weather event, which may include statistics and distributions.);
foundation conditions (Burgess, col. 4, lines 16 – 2 – the amount of damage and type of damage may be estimated based on information regarding the weather event, which may include statistics and distributions.);
HVAC conditions