DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 20, 21, and 23.
Claims 2-5, 8-14, and 17-23 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 2-5, 8-14, and 17-23 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant argued that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant merely alleges the claims do not recite an abstract idea and provides no analysis as to why the claims are not directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Merely having a different opinion as to how to describe the thrust of the claims does not change what the claims actually recite. Utilizing sensors and API’s do not change the abstract nature of the claims but rather are the computer implementation of the underlying abstract idea. Examiner identified the limitations which define the abstract idea and how they are directed to a fundamental economic practice or commercial/legal interaction. Since they are a fundamental economic practice and commercial/legal interaction the claims fall into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore constitute an abstract idea (and thus a judicial exception).
Applicant argued that the claims a recite a practical application of the judicial exception. Applicant argued its claims address a technical problem/deficiency in the art by presenting an integrated/automated system. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant merely points out the utility of the claims and attempts to equate that utility to a technological deficiency. Merely because the claims have utility and are trying to improve the art does not mean that those improvements are an improvement to technology. Applicant is addressing a business problem (detecting a disaster and contacting someone to remedy the disaster) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology. Applicant merely focuses on the actions performed by the computer (the acquiring through initiating steps). Having a computer perform these actions is not an improvement to technology. While having an automated system of sensors and processors is preferable to having a human monitor a building; this does not mean that an improvement to technology is present, or any other form of practical application. Applicant is not improving how the sensors function or are able to detect a disaster. Applicant is not improving how the sensors interact with each other or implementing them in a technological way. The identified limitations do no amount to a practical application because they are a part of the abstract idea. Outside of the abstract idea there remains only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Neither of these are indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not address a technical limitation/deficiency in the art and thus does not amount to a practical application. Applicant has merely focused on the utility of the claims. While the claims have utility this does not mean that there is a technical improvement.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
Regarding Prior Art Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 2-5, 8-14, and 17-23 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art.
Applicant has amended their claims. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 2-5, 8-14, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as contacting a repair service provider.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 17-19 and 23) and machine (claims 2-5, 8-14, and 20-22).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 20, 21, and 23 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
detecting a disaster event received by a structure and to accelerate recovery of the structure therefrom,
detect a physical property of the structure and to record and communicate data related to its corresponding detected physical property from the disaster event,
detecting, in real-time, the disaster event based on aggregating and processing patterns in data received to identify deviations indicative of the disaster event;
analyzing the received data to classify a disaster type of the detected disaster event using automated pattern recognition on the sensor data patterns,
acquiring access to an insurance carrier's policy for the structure that is associated with the classified disaster type,
analyzing the accessed insurance carrier policy to identify a plurality of preferred repair service providers of the insurance carrier and to select at least one repair service provider therefrom based on the classified disaster type and a determined location of the disaster event;
ascertaining contact information for the selected at least one repair service provider, and
automatically initiating communications via the ascertained contact information with the selected at least one repair service provider to accelerate recovery of the structure from the disaster event.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. Specifically, the claims recite detecting that a repair is needed and contacting a repair service provider. This is a commercial/legal interaction related to insurance; a type of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Furthermore, since the claims also touch upon risk mitigation they are also a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, then it recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of one or more computing devices , a computer-implemented building automation system, one or more sensors, a processing hardware set, a computer-readable storage device medium, program instructions, a detection module, a type module, an action module, data sources, an apparatus, an application programming interface, database query; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims 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 judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of one or more computing devices , a computer-implemented building automation system, one or more sensors, a processing hardware set, a computer-readable storage device medium, program instructions, a detection module, a type module, an action module, data sources, an apparatus, an application programming interface, database query; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a vehicle with generic components and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0019-0058], [0069-0071], [0097-0107], [0112] about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. 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. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 8-12, 17, 18, and 22, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 21 and 23. Therefore, claims 2, 3, 5, 8-12, 17, 18, and 22 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 4, 13, 14, and 19, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 21 and 23. In addition, the recite the additional elements of at least one interactive graphical user interface element, at least one different sensor unit, a sensor unit, an electronic form. The components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 4, 13, 14, and 19 are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 2-5, 8-14, 17-19, and 22 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
Applicant has amended their claims. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights