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 Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 01/28/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 have been amended.
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.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-9 is directed to a computer implemented method, claim 10-16 is directed to using a system to perform the method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for detecting water hazard conditions proximate to a structure to improve structure survivability, the method comprising:
receiving, from a sensor disposed proximate to the structure, a water level signal;
determining, by one or more processors, a water level proximate to the structure based upon the water level signal;
detecting, by the one or more processors executing a water hazard model, a water hazard condition based upon the water level proximate to the structure;
determining, by the one or more processors, (i) a recommended mitigation action to mitigate damage to the structure from the water hazard condition and (ii) a cause of the water hazard condition; and
generating, by the one or more processors, an alert signal indicating the water hazard condition and the recommended mitigation action.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“receiving, from a sensor disposed proximate to the structure, a water level signal” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“determining, by one or more processors, a water level proximate to the structure based upon the water level signal” is directed to math because the raw signal must be processed to produce a reliable water level measurement. This involves several mathematical and statistical techniques.
“detecting, by the one or more processors executing a water hazard model, a water hazard condition based upon the water level proximate to the structure” is directed to a mental step of data analysis.
“determining, by the one or more processors, (i) a recommended mitigation action to mitigate damage to the structure from the water hazard condition and (ii) a cause of the water hazard condition” is directed to a mental step of data analysis.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor, body part, and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “determining, by one or more processors, a water level proximate to the structure based upon the water level signal” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A computer-implemented method for detecting water hazard conditions proximate to a structure to improve structure survivability, the method comprising:” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, by one or more processors, a water level proximate to the structure based upon the water level signal” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“detecting, by the one or more processors executing a water hazard model, a water hazard condition based upon the water level proximate to the structure” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, by the one or more processors, (i) a recommended mitigation action to mitigate damage to the structure from the water hazard condition and (ii) a cause of the water hazard condition” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“generating, by the one or more processors, an alert signal indicating the water hazard condition and the recommended mitigation action” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely collecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
Step 2B:
“A computer-implemented method for detecting water hazard conditions proximate to a structure to improve structure survivability, the method comprising:” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, by one or more processors, a water level proximate to the structure based upon the water level signal” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“detecting, by the one or more processors executing a water hazard model, a water hazard condition based upon the water level proximate to the structure” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, by the one or more processors, (i) a recommended mitigation action to mitigate damage to the structure from the water hazard condition and (ii) a cause of the water hazard condition” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“generating, by the one or more processors, an alert signal indicating the water hazard condition and the recommended mitigation action” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 is similar to claim 1 but recites a system comprising one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors to perform the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 10 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 10.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to software per se.
As in claim 17, applicant has claimed “[a] tangible machine-readable medium comprising instructions” and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a computer readable storage medium comprising computer program“ when executed, cause a machine performing the claimed, and thus, these features recite software per se, which is non-statutory subject matter. Further, in the recitation of “a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computing device to cause the computing device to ...,” the limitation of “the program instructions executable by a computing device to cause the computing device to ...” recited as a condition precedent, wherein the instructions being executed by the computing device is not positively recited as necessarily being performed in the claim, and for this reason, the computing device is outside the scope of the claim. As a result, these claims must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non- statutory subject matter.
Claim 17 cites a tangible machine-readable medium comprising instructions for detecting water hazard conditions proximate to a structure to improve structure survivability that, when executed, cause a machine to perform the steps as in claim 1. This amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Additionally, using instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer “is not ‘enough' to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Therefore, the rejection of claim 17 for the same reason discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 18-20 do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies of claim 17, and thus, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claims 2, 11, 18, “wherein the sensor is one of a plurality of sensors disposed proximate to a plurality of structures, and receiving the water level signal further comprises: aggregating, by the one or more processors, water level signals from the plurality of sensors; creating, by the one or more processors, a regional water level map that represents water level conditions in a region including the structure; and causing, by the one or more processors, the regional water level map to be displayed to a user” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 3, 12, 19, “retrieving, by the one or more processors, radar data representing weather conditions within the region including the structure; determining, by the one or more processors, a predicted water level at a first time based upon the radar data and the water level signals from the plurality of sensors; and generating, by the one or more processors, a predicted alert signal indicating (i) the predicted water level at the first time and (ii) a predicted mitigation action” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 4, 13, 20, “retrieving, by the one or more processors, historical water level data for a plurality of regions including a region that includes the structure, the historical water level data including at least one of: (i) water level values, (ii) ground saturation values, (iii) water damage claim values, or (iv) soil-type values; determining, by the one or more processors, one or more zones within the plurality of regions based upon the historical water level data; and causing, by the one or more processors, the one or more zones to be displayed to a user” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 5, 14, “wherein determining the cause of the damage to the structure further comprises: retrieving, by the one or more processors, contractor data corresponding to structures within the plurality of regions; and determining, by the one or more processors, the cause of the damage to the structure based upon the contractor data and the historical water level data” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 6, 15, “retrieving, by the one or more processors, geolocation data corresponding to the structure; determining, by the one or more processors, a structural recommendation based upon the geolocation data and the water hazard condition; and causing, by the one or more processors, the structural recommendation to be displayed to a user” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 7, 16, “wherein the sensor disposed proximate to the structure is configured to generate a three-dimensional (3D) scan of ground proximate to the structure, and the method further comprises: receiving, from the sensor, the 3D scan of the ground proximate to the structure; identifying, by the one or more processors, ground slopes of the ground proximate to the structure; and determining, by the one or more processors, a recommended modification to the ground proximate to the structure based upon the ground slopes and the water hazard condition” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the sensor is disposed in an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) configured to fly over the structure” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 9, “generating, by the one or more processors, a virtual reality (VR) representation of ground proximate to the structure; and causing, by the one or more processors, one or more recommendations to be displayed to a user in the VR representation” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spadola et al. (US 7,458,782).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, Spadola et al. disclose a computer-implemented method for detecting water hazard conditions proximate to a structure, the method comprising: receiving, from a sensor (60, 66) disposed proximate to the structure, a water level signal (Fig.1 and Fig.3, Col.5, lines 16-18, Col.6, lines 15-25); determining, by one or more processors, a water level proximate to the structure based upon the water level signal (e.g. Col.5, lines 49-55, Col.6, lines 30-38); detecting, by the one or more processors executing a water hazard model, a water hazard condition based upon the water level proximate to the structure (e.g. Col.4, line 66-Col.5, line 14, Col.5, lines 49-Col.6, lines 38-50); determining, by the one or more processors, (i) a recommended mitigation action to mitigate damage to the structure from the water hazard condition and (ii) a cause of the water hazard condition (Col.7, lines 14-20: when abnormal or unexpected movement of the drapes occurs, the system 10 enters an alarm condition. It is inherently that when abnormal, unbalances movement of laundry like heavy, unspread drapes causes water leaks by creating severe vibration that dislodge or damage internal components. This off-balance load forces the tub against the door seal, damaging the gasket, and causes excessive stress on the drain hose or water pump, leading to leaks, typically during the high-speed spin cycle); and generating, by the one or more processors, an alert signal indicating the water hazard condition and the recommended mitigation action (Col.5, line 56-Col.6, line 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spadola et al. (US 7,458,782) in view of Drury et al. (US 6,912,270).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 18, Spadola et al. disclose wherein the sensor is one of a plurality of sensors disposed proximate to a plurality of structures, and receiving the water level signal (Fig.1 and Fig.3, Col.5, lines 16-18, Col.6, lines 15-25) further comprises: aggregating, by the one or more processors, water level signals from the plurality of sensors (e.g. Col.6, lines 15-27); creating, by the one or more processors, a regional water level conditions in a region including the structure; and causing, by the one or more processors, the regional water level to be displayed to a user (e.g. Fig.5 , Col.6, lines 11-14).
Spadola et al. fail to disclose creating, by the one or more processors, a regional water level map that represents water level conditions in a region including the structure; and causing, by the one or more processors, the regional water level map to be displayed to a user.
Drury et al. teach creating, by the one or more processors, a regional water level map that represents water level conditions in a region including the structure; and causing, by the one or more processors, the regional water level map to be displayed to a user (e.g. Col.3, line 63-Col.4, line 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Drury et al. with the teaching of Spadola et al. in order to predict how the water level of a chosen area will rise (Col.3, lines 54-62).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 19, Spadola et al. disclose determining, by the one or more processors, a predicted water level at a first time based upon the plurality sensors and generating, by the one or more processors, a predicted alert signal indicating (i) the predicted water level at the first time and (ii) a predicted mitigation action (Col.5, line 56-Col.6, line 10).
Spadola et al. fail to disclose retrieving, by the one or more processors, radar data representing weather conditions within the region including the structure; determining, by the one or more processors, a predicted water level at a first time based upon the radar data and the water level signals from the plurality of sensors.
Drury et al. teach retrieving, by the one or more processors, radar data representing weather conditions within the region including the structure; determining, by the one or more processors, a predicted water level at a first time based upon the radar data (Col.8, line 64-Col.10, line 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Drury et al. with the teaching of Spadola et al. in order to predict how the water level of a chosen area will rise (Col.3, lines 54-62).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Spadola et al. fail to disclose retrieving, by the one or more processors, contractor data corresponding to structures within the plurality of regions; and determining, by the one or more processors, the cause of the damage to the structure based upon the contractor data and the historical water level data.
Drury et al. teach retrieving, by the one or more processors, contractor data (building, road) corresponding to structures within the plurality of regions; and determining, by the one or more processors, the cause of the damage to the structure based upon the contractor data and the historical water level data (e.g. Col.6, lines 5-33, Col.9, line 60-Col.10, line 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Drury et al. with the teaching of Spadola et al. in order to predict how the water level of a chosen area will rise (Col.3, lines 54-62).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Spadola et al. disclose retrieving, by the one or more processors, geolocation data corresponding to the structure; determining, by the one or more processors, a structural recommendation based upon the geolocation data and the water hazard condition; and causing, by the one or more processors, the structural recommendation to be displayed to a user.
Drury et al. teach retrieving, by the one or more processors, geolocation data corresponding to the structure; determining, by the one or more processors, a structural recommendation based upon the geolocation data and the water hazard condition; and causing, by the one or more processors, the structural recommendation to be displayed to a user (e.g. Col.6, lines 32-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Drury et al. with the teaching of Spadola et al. in order to predict how the water level of a chosen area will rise (Col.3, lines 54-62).
Claim(s) 4, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spadola et al. (US 7,458,782) in view of Banta (US 2020/0209092 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 20, Spadola et al. disclose causing, by the one or more processors, the one or more zones to be displayed to a user (e.g. Fig.5 , Col.6, lines 11-14).
Spadola et al. fail to disclose retrieving, by the one or more processors, historical water level data for a plurality of regions including the region that includes the structure, the historical water level data including at least one of: (i) water level values; determining, by the one or more processors, one or more zones within the plurality of regions based upon the historical water level data.
Banta teaches retrieving, by the one or more processors, historical water level data for a plurality of regions including the region that includes the structure, the historical water level data including at least one of: (i) water level values (e.g. claim 5); determining, by the one or more processors, one or more zones within the plurality of regions based upon the historical water level data (e.g. abstract, claim 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Banta with the teaching of Spadola et al. in order to provide a sump pump tracking device and system that monitors the water elevation in a sump pit and triggers an alarm if the water level reaches an alarm elevation (para. [0008]).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spadola et al. (US 7,458,782) in view of Marlow et al. (US 9,505,494).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Spadola et al. fail to disclose wherein the sensor disposed proximate to the structure is configured to generate a three-dimensional (3D) scan of ground proximate to the structure, and the method further comprises: receiving, from the sensor, the 3D scan of the ground proximate to the structure; identifying, by the one or more processors, ground slopes of the ground proximate to the structure; and determining, by the one or more processors, a recommended modification to the ground proximate to the structure based upon the ground slopes and the water hazard condition.
Marlow et al. teach wherein the sensor disposed proximate to the structure is configured to generate a three-dimensional (3D) scan of ground proximate to the structure, and the method further comprises: receiving, from the sensor, the 3D scan of the ground proximate to the structure (The UAV 902 may further detect the dimensions, height, and distance from real estate property 904 of such potential risks by using LIDAR, radar, and other onboard geo-mapping sensors.. .the UAV 902 may detect the presence of exposed or damaged wiring in or outside a building of the real estate property 904, beehives, animal and/or pest infestation, fungus and/or mold, water damage, rust in the building, clogged chimneys, and other physically detectable forms of insurance risks to the real estate property 904.); identifying, by the one or more processors, ground slopes of the ground proximate to the structure (the UAV 902 may capture images and collect data for damage 908b from multiple different angles and vantage points); and determining, by the one or more processors, a recommended modification to the ground proximate to the structure based upon the ground slopes and the water hazard condition (the insurance policyholder had been warned to remove that insurance risk by chopping down or trimming the tree)(e.g. Fig.9.A, Col.36, lines 5-49, Col.38, lines 40-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Marlow et al. with the teaching of Spadola et al. in order to provide systems and methods for performing insurance damage inspection by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Marlow et al., abstract).
Regarding claims 8, Marlow et al. disclose wherein the sensor is disposed in an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) configured to fly over the structure (Col.35, lines 25-42).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spadola et al. (US 7,458,782) in view of Sun et al. (US 11,107,025).
Regarding claim 9, Spadola et al. fail to disclose generating, by the one or more processors, a virtual reality (VR) representation of ground proximate to the structure; and causing, by the one or more processors, one or more recommendations to be displayed to a user in the VR representation.
Sun et al. teach generating, by the one or more processors, a virtual reality (VR) representation of ground proximate to the structure; and causing, by the one or more processors, one or more recommendations to be displayed to a user in the VR representation (e.g. Col.21, lines 13-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Sun et al. with the teaching of Spadola et al. in order to provide systems and methods for producing and distributing information relevant to water events (Sun et al., abstract).
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Karli et al. (USP 11,436,777) disclose a hazard visualization system that can use artificial intelligence to identify locations at which hazards have occurred and a cause therein and to predict locations at which hazards may occur in the future is described herein. As a result, the hazard visualization system may reduce the likelihood of structural damage and/or loss of life that could otherwise occur due to natural disasters or other hazards. For example, the hazard visualization system can train an artificial intelligence model to predict the date, time, type, severity, path, and/or other conditions of a hazard that may occur at a geographic location. As another example, the hazard visualization system can train an artificial intelligence model to identify equipment or other infrastructure depicted in geographic images.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that the present claims are directed to an improvement in technology rather than an abstract idea. As described in the specification, the claims recite improvements in computer functionality because a hosting server or computing device is improved where the intelligence or predictive ability of the computing device is enhanced by a trained water hazard model. This model, executing on the computing device, is able to accurately and efficiently determine water hazard conditions, mitigation actions, and causes of damage based upon sensor data associated with water levels proximate to structures. Id. This represents an improvement to underlying technology at least because existing systems lack such predictive or classification functionality and are incapable of accurately analyzing such data to quickly output predictive and recommended results to improve structure survivability. (Applicant’s remark, pages 9-10).
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for detecting water hazard conditions proximate to a structure to improve structure survivability, the method comprising: receiving, from a sensor disposed proximate to the structure, a water level signal; determining, by one or more processors, a water level proximate to the structure based upon the water level signal; detecting, by the one or more processors executing a water hazard model, a water hazard condition based upon the water level proximate to the structure; determining, by the one or more processors, (i) a recommended mitigation action to mitigate damage to the structure from the water hazard condition and (ii) a cause of the water hazard condition; and generating, by the one or more processors, an alert signal indicating the water hazard condition and the recommended mitigation action. The step of “receiving, from a sensor disposed proximate to the structure, a water level signal” is directed to mental step of data gathering. The step of “determining, by one or more processors, a water level proximate to the structure based upon the water level signal” is directed to math because the raw signal must be processed to produce a reliable water level measurement. This involves several mathematical and statistical techniques. The step of “detecting, by the one or more processors executing a water hazard model, a water hazard condition based upon the water level proximate to the structure” is directed to a mental step of data analysis. The step of “determining, by the one or more processors, (i) a recommended mitigation action to mitigate damage to the structure from the water hazard condition and (ii) a cause of the water hazard condition” is directed to a mental step of data analysis. Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor, body part, and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Further, the claim recites the step of “determining, by one or more processors, a water level proximate to the structure based upon the water level signal” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
It is noted that the claims do not recite any details regarding how the water hazard model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the water hazard model as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the water hazard model merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of the water hazard model to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
Examiner notes that the claims are directed to determining a water level proximate to the structure based upon the water level signal; detecting a water hazard condition based upon the water level proximate to the structure; determining (i) a recommended mitigation action to mitigate damage to the structure from the water hazard condition and (ii) a cause of the water hazard condition; and generating an alert signal indicating the water hazard condition and the recommended mitigation action. It is unclear how improve structure survivability results in improvement of the function of a computer or improvement another technology or technical filed.
Therefore, the discussed improvement (i.e. improve structure survivability) is related to an abstract idea itself, which is “determining, by one or more processors, a water level proximate to the structure based upon the water level signal” for a mathematical formula. As discussed in 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology and does not improve computer functionality.
-Applicant argues that the priors do not teach “determining a cause of the water hazard condition”.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Spadola et al. (US 7,458,782) teach a cause of the water hazard condition (Col.7, lines 14-20: when abnormal or unexpected movement of the drapes occurs, the system 10 enters an alarm condition. It is inherently that when abnormal, unbalances movement of laundry like heavy, unspread drapes causes water leaks by creating severe vibration that dislodge or damage internal components. This off-balance load forces the tub against the door seal, damaging the gasket, and causes excessive stress on the drain hose or water pump, leading to leaks, typically during the high-speed spin cycle).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857