CTFR 18/459,378 CTFR 84029 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Applicant filed an amendment on 4/30/26. claims 1-20 were pending; applicant has amended claims 1,5,9,10,13,16 and 19. No claims are added or canceled and thus claims 1-20 remain pending. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1,10, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: as amended, for example in claim 1, “a device associated with the structure” and then user computing device” and then “the device” is unclear because “the device could refer to either device as generically described above. For the purpose of examination, it is presumed to be a device associated with the structure . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 they are directed to an abstract idea without more. Claims 1-20 are directed to a Method (claim 1) , system (claim 10) , and computer medium (claim 16). Independent claim 1 has been identified as the exemplary claim for analysis. Claims 1-20 are directed to statutory classes of invention (Step 1 Yes) Claim 1 recites a method for detecting emergency conditions within structures and initiating remediation. The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity which is a fundamental economic practice. The abstract limitations include detecting, by …, an emergency condition within a …; determining, by the …, a set of remediation services corresponding to the … based upon the emergency condition; identifying, by the …, one or more remediation service providers to perform the set of remediation services; … , … associated with the … to perform a remediation action corresponding to the set of remediation services; generating, by the …, i a remediation alert signal that includes contact information corresponding to at least one of the one or more remediation service providers and (ii) a virtual representation of the emergency condition within a virtual reality (VR) environment; [[and]] transmitting, by …, the remediation alert signal to a … of a user associated with the …; and updating, by the …, the virtual representation in response to (i) completion of at least a portion of the set of remediation services or (ii) … at least partially performing the remediation action. If a claim under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice then it falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claim recites an abstract idea. Here the non-abstract ideas include “one or more processors” and “computing device of the user” A Structure. Arguably “VR environment” might be something but, no display or definition of the VR environment is claimed. Claim 1 is applying generic computing components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of a generic computing components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 10, 16 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1. (Step 2A Prong 1 Yes) the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of “one or more processors” and “computing device of the user”, Claim 3 adds a device within the structure, claim 4, a smart lock, home security system or water flow sensor, claim 6, a plurality of devices, claim 9 a VR environment (now also in claim 1), Claims 12, 14, 18 are similar to 3,4 and 6. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality, (generic processor performing generic computing function). Such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing computer component. According, there 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 and are at a high level of generality. There claims 1, 10,16 are directed to an abstract directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A Prong 2 ) The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they don’t not add significantly more to than the exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See applicant specification 0028, discuses an inventive concept of “training water level signal data, usage data, sensor data, environmental data, contractor data, geolocation data) to output the user/owner-specific conditions and recommendations configured to improve the respective user/owner's maintenance and emergency preparedness efforts related to a structure and associated devices.” However, the spec is generally directed to generic computing elements. Per MPEP 2106.05 (f) the use of generic computer as a tool is not significantly more. Thus claims 1, 10 and 16 directed to an abstract idea and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and are thus abstract for the reasons presented above. They are not integrated into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually or as an ordered combination. It is noted that the “VR environment” could become an element by defining the VR environment to be a specific component or viewing element. Step 2B No the claims do not provide significantly more. The dependent claims 2-9,11-15 and 17-20 are rejected because they do not add additional elements except those noted above that would amount to significantly more or in ordered combination. Thus the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Claims 1-20 are thus not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s)s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication to Horton 20160261425 in view of US Patent Publication 20230116513 to Pratt . As per claim 1, Horton discloses; detecting, by one or more processors, an emergency condition within a structure; determining, by the one or more processors, Horton(0137, emergency such as fire) a set of remediation services corresponding to the structure based upon the emergency condition; Horton(0651) identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more remediation service providers to perform the set of remediation services; Horton(0651) causing, by the one or more processors, a device associated with the structure to perform a remediation action corresponding to the set of remediation services; Horton, (remediation action, 0651… warn others and the authorities) generating, by the one or more processors, a remediation alert signal that includes contact information corresponding to at least one of the one or more remediation service providers ; Horton(0651) of the emergency condition Horton(0651, remediation signal to authorities, one or more could just be one) and transmitting, by the one or more processors, Horton(0650 alert) Pratt (Mitigation action) the remediation alert signal to a user computing device of a user associated with the structure. Horton(0149, can report for remediation, police or emergency response and 0468 the user can be alerted too) …by the one or more processors, in response to (i) completion of at least a portion of the set of remediation services or (ii) the device at least partially performing the remediation action. Horton(remediation, 0651, choice of) Horton does not explicitly disclose what Pratt teaches; the virtual representation and (ii) a virtual representation within a virtual reality (VR) environment and the ability to update the virtual representation; (0029 virtual representation of the claimant’s vehicle, and 0031, virtual representation of human and VR 0036) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the event approaching disclosure of Horton with the mitigation teaching of Pratt for the motivation of providing better than “inadequate mitigation on a collective basis…” (0001) Claims 10, 16 are similar to claim 1. As per claim 2 Horton discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to detecting the emergency condition, detecting, by the one or more processors, a catastrophic event approaching the structure; generating, by the one or more processors, a damage mitigation recommendation based upon the catastrophic event and the structure; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the damage mitigation recommendation to the user computing device. Horton(0390 weather conditions, 0389 and weather forecast, fig. 4) Claims 11, 17 are similar to claim 2. As per claim 3 Horton discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: responsive to detecting the catastrophic event, determining, by the one or more processors, whether or not the structure is occupied based upon signal data from one or more devices associated with the structure; and responsive to determining that the structure is not occupied, transmitting, by the one or more processors, a signal to a device within the structure to perform a preventative action corresponding to the catastrophic event. Horton (0080 occupied structure, detection) As per claim 4 Horton discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the one or more devices associated with the structure include at least one of: (i) a smart lock, (ii) a home security system, or (iii) a water flow sensor. Horton (0056 smart lock) 12 and 18 are similar to claims 3 plus claim 4 As per claim 5, Horton discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of remediation services further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, the remediation action based upon the emergency condition, wherein the device is disposed within the structure; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a signal to the device to cause to perform the remediation action. Horton (0651-2 notify the authorities, 0048 and 0080, it appears that the device is within the house) Claims 13 and 19 are similar to claim 5. As per claim 6, Horton discloses detecting a forecasted weather event. (fig 4. ) or other events 0515-516. Or further evacuate the premises 0651. However, Horton does not explicitly disclose what Pratt teaches which is mitigation based on the weather. Pratt(0025, mitigation, move to safe ground) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the event approaching disclosure of Horton with the mitigation teaching of Pratt for the motivation of providing better than “inadequate mitigation on a collective basis…” (0001) Claim 14 is similar to claim 6 As per claim 7 Horton discloses; the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the evacuation recommendation includes one or more recommended evacuation routes and one or more safe areas. (0651) As per claim 8 Horton discloses; detecting emergency conditions. (0515), However, Pratt teaches; a catastrophic event approaching the structure; determining, by the one or more processors, an emergency condition likelihood value based upon the catastrophic event; generating, by the one or more processors, an emergency condition alert based upon the emergency condition likelihood value; and causing, by the one or more processors, the emergency condition alert to be displayed to the user. Pratt(a likelihood is essentially a prediction based on a forecast, 0045, ie if one predicts a weather concern, its never 100%, it’s a prediction which has a accuracy, see also 0069 for confidence score) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the event approaching disclosure of Horton with the mitigation teaching of Pratt for the motivation of providing better than “inadequate mitigation on a collective basis…” (0001) Claims 15 and 20 are similar to claim 8. As per claim 9 Horton does not explicitly disclose what Pratt teaches; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, a virtual representation of the emergency condition within a virtual reality (VR) environment ; and causing, by the one or more processors, the virtual representation of the emergency condition to be displayed to the user while the user is viewing the VR environment. Pratt(0036 Virtual reality) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the event approaching disclosure of Horton with the mitigation teaching of Pratt for the motivation of providing better than “inadequate mitigation on a collective basis…” (0001) Response to Arguments Applicant filed an amendment on 4/30/26. claims 1-20 were pending; applicant has amended claims 1,5,9,10,13,16 and 19. No claims are added or canceled and thus claims 1-20 remain pending. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Argued in view of, UPSTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG") published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50), the USPTO's October 2019 Update ("October 2019 PEG Update"), and the USPTO's changes to the M.P.E.P. in light of the Ex Parte Desjardins decision. See "Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins" Memo (dated December 5, 2025). 10 Step 2A, Prong Two Under Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application at least in view of the following Step 2A, Prong Two considerations. In particular, "the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity." October 2019 PEG Update at 12-13. In addition, "[the] claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., 'thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel')." Id. at 12; see also M.P.E.P. §§ 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a). Thus, by reciting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, the pending claims are "directed to" patent eligible subject matter at least because they integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that, when the claims are properly and fairly considered as a whole, the claims demonstrate subject matter eligibility of the pending claims per Step 2A, Prong Two at least as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Here the improvement to the computer is not yet clear. Representative claim 1 recites specific steps accomplishing a result that realizes an improvement in computer functionality by addressing certain challenges related to emergency condition detection, remediation coordination, and real-time visualization of emergency conditions. See Specification, para. [0027]. Specifically, representative claim I is directed to, inter alia, "causing, by the one or more processors, a device associated with the structure to perform a remediation action corresponding to the set of remediation services," "generating, by the one or more processors, (i) a remediation alert signal that includes contact information corresponding to at least one of the one or more remediation service providers and (ii) a virtual representation of the emergency condition within a virtual reality (VR) environment," and "updating, by the one or more processors, the virtual representation in response to (i) completion of at least a portion of the set of remediation services or (ii) the device at least partially performing the remediation action." These elements provide an improvement over existing telematics. Namely, paragraphs [0003]-[0006] describe several difficulties and issues experienced by existing techniques (reproduced in part below): [0003]-[0004] [...] [O] wners may typically determine when and how to perform maintenance, but may conventionally lack sufficient knowledge about when and how that maintenance should be performed. [...] Conventional techniques may completely lack the capability to inform property owners about such issues. [...] [T]hese conventional techniques frequently overlook portions of an owner's structure or devices that may desperately require maintenance or repair, such that the owner's structure/devices may experience catastrophic effects (e.g., bursting pipes, major structural damage from fractured foundation, etc.) leading to exorbitantly expensive and/or irreparable damage. [0005]-[0006] These issues with conventional techniques may be further compounded in circumstances where the owner's structure is subjected to extreme weather conditions that may cause months/years-worth of damage or wear in relatively short periods (e.g., minutes, hours, days). [...] [C]onventional techniques may be insufficient for providing such proper upkeep. (emphasis added). By contrast, paragraphs [0027]-[0028] describe how the present techniques provide solutions to the issues described above. In particular, portions of paragraphs [0027]-[0028] recite: [0027]-[0028] [...] [A] hosting server (e.g., central server), or otherwise computing device (e.g., a user computing device), is improved where the intelligence or predictive ability of the hosting server or computing device is enhanced by a trained water hazard model, device health model, emergency condition model, and mapping model. [...] [T]he present disclosure describes improvements in the functioning of the computer itself or "any other technology or technical field" because a hosting server or user computing device, is enhanced with various models to accurately predict, detect, determine, and generate user/owner-specific conditions and recommendations configured to improve the respective user/owner's maintenance and emergency preparedness efforts related to a structure and associated devices. This improves over the prior art at least because existing systems lack such predictive or classification functionality, and are simply not capable of accurately analyzing such data on a real-time basis to output predictive and/or otherwise recommended results designed to improve a user/owner's overall upkeep and emergency preparedness efforts related to a structure and associated devices. (emphasis added). More specifically, each of the above-identified elements recited in amended claim 1 helps achieve the advantages described in paragraphs [0027]-[0028] of the Specification. For 12 example, by "causing, by the one or more processors, a device associated with the structure to perform a remediation action corresponding to the set of remediation services," the method in claim 1 actively mitigates emergency conditions without the delay typical of many existing techniques. In particular, this "causing" element improves emergency response by causing devices within the structure to perform remediation actions, thereby reducing the time between detection of an emergency condition and initiation of remediation efforts. As a result, the "causing" element of claim 1 practically/directly applies the determined remediation action(s) to improve the remediation outcomes for the structure. This claim 1 element thus overcomes limitations faced by existing techniques in performing timely remediation actions to stem the negative effects of such emergency conditions. See Specification, paras. [0003]-[0004]. Moreover, the combination of the "generating" and "updating" elements address a technical deficiency of many existing systems that lack real-time feedback mechanisms for monitoring emergency conditions and remediation status. See Specification, paras. [0003]- [0004]. Providing only static or outdated information about emergency conditions presents a difficult technical problem because emergency conditions are inherently dynamic and evolving (e.g., water levels rise, damage spreads, and remediation progresses). Existing systems providing only static snapshots thus cannot accurately represent the current state of the structure, leading to delayed or inappropriate remediation responses. However, by generating a VR representation and dynamically updating that representation in response to remediation progress, the claim 1 system reflects the current state of the structure and associated devices in real-time. See Specification, paras. [0181]-[0182]. The claim 1 system thus creates a dynamic feedback loop between the physical state of the structure/devices and the virtual representation to maintain synchronization between the actual emergency condition status and the displayed representation. See Specification, paras. [0027]- [0028]. This synchronization enables the claim 1 system to more accurately determine and provide remediation actions over time based upon the most current information about the state of the structure and associated devices. Therefore, the "generating" and "updating" elements overcome challenges of existing techniques that lack real-time visualization, automatic remediation capabilities, and dynamic feedback mechanisms. Here VR representation would be more persuasive if it were displayed on a device for example. Furthermore then various real time and synchronization elements argued are not claimed. However, the examiner could see how these elements could be claimed as argued above and create a claim that overcomes 35 USC 101. Overall, claim 1 detects emergency conditions, initiates remediation actions through devices within the structure, generates VR representations of emergency conditions, and dynamically updates those representations as remediation progresses. Consequently, at least the above-recited elements of claim I overcome several technical challenges experienced by many existing techniques to improve emergency response and remediation coordination technology. Accordingly, at least for the above reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn at least because a prima facie case of subject matter eligibility cannot be established with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two. III. Here the claims do not overcome the rejection as recited because the VR and technical elements are still at a high level of generality. But if specifically claimed, the examiner would agree in principal. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 – moot in view of new grounds of rejection as a result of an amendment. IV. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claims 6-9, 14-15, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Horton in view of Patt. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. As previously discussed, Horton does not disclose, teach, or suggest at least the above-recited "generating" and "updating" elements of claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that Patt also fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least these claim elements. Patt generally describes a system for providing individualized loss mitigation content to users affected by predicted events, including damage assessment interfaces. See Patt, Abstract. While Patt mentions that computing devices may include "virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) headsets" as examples of devices that can communicate with the computing system, this merely identifies VR headsets as one type of computing device that may be used to access the system. See Patt, para. [0036]. Patt does not disclose generating a virtual representation of an emergency condition within a VR environment. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that Patt's virtual representations of vehicles or humans for damage assessment purposes could be considered analogous to a "virtual representation of the emergency condition," Patt does not disclose, teach, or suggest " updating ... the virtual representation in response to (i) completion of at least a portion of the set of remediation services or ( ii) the device at least partially performing the remediation action," as recited in claim 1. Patt's representations are static damage assessment tools that enable users to indicate damage locations and are not dynamically updated in response to remediation progress or device actions. See, e.g., Patt, paras. [0135]-[0136]. Indeed, Patt does not disclose any progressive updating of a VR environment in response to completion of tasks or a device actually performing some action. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Horton and Patt fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least these elements of claim 1. Claims 10 and 16 recite similar elements, such that similar arguments apply. Claims 6-9, 14-15, and 20 each depend from one of claim 1, 10, or 16, respectively, such that Applicant respectfully submits the applied references also fail to disclose, teach, or suggest each and every element of these claims for at least the same reasons as their respective base claim. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 15 Here the applicant argument is in part moot. However, in regards to “progressive updating of a VR environment, the examiner finds this non persuasive because applicant might be claiming broader language than intended. Here Updating , by the one or more processors, the virtual representation in response to (i) completion of at least a portion of the set of remediation services or (ii) the device at least partially performing the remediation action. Here “or is a choice of one”, and it appears that in Pratt 0031, the injury assessment can be completed by updating the virtual representation to show the damages and loss toby injury. The combination of this updating virtual representation with the remediation teachings of Horton under 35 USC 103(a) should be sufficient. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Evaluation of Smart Home Systems and Novel UV-Oriented Solution for Integration, Resilience, Inclusiveness & Sustainability, IEEE 2022 Threat Modeling and Security Issues for the Internet of Things, IEEE 2019 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 2 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 3 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 4 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 5 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 6 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 7 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 8 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 9 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 10 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 11 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 12 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 13 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 14 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 15 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 16 Art Unit: 3693 Application/Control Number: 18/459,378 Page 17 Art Unit: 3693
Prosecution Insights