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 .
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s arguments filed on November 14, 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 14, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has not amended any claims.
Claims 2-5, 8-14, and 17-23 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim Objections
Examiner initially objected to claims for improper use of brackets in amending the claims. Since the claims are not amended this issue is moot. Examiner withdraws this objection.
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 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. 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.
Applicant argued its claims are similar to those in Enfish. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claim are not similar to those in Enfish merely by “improving efficiency”. The claims in Enfish were a self-referential data table a new type of memory structure which amounted to a non-abstract idea. This is why the claims in Enfish amounted to eligible subject matter. Applicant has not created a new type of memory or something similar such an improved processor or sensor. As such Applicant’s claims are not similar to those in Enfish.
Applicant argued its claims are similar to those in Amdocs and DDR. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant merely takes general statements from these cases and do not address the actual reasons those claims amounted to eligible subject matter. Applicant’s claims are not similar to those in Amdocs in which the manner that data was gathered provided an inventive concept through use of distributed architecture. The claims in Amdocs were directed to field enhancement in a distributed network. It was the specificity of the claimed architecture which amounted to eligible subject matter. Applicant’s claims are not similar merely because the abstract idea is claimed with specificity. Applicant’s claims are not similar to those in Amdocs. Applicant’s claims do not amount to a practical application under this comparison. Applicant’s claims are not similar to those in DDR. In DDR the composite webpage described in the claims amounted to eligible subject matter because they addressed an issue specifically arising in the context on the technology. This is the basis for which the claims amounted to eligible subject matter; not because (at a high level) the claims could be considered as manipulating interactions between different devices or with the internet. Applicant’s claims are not similar in the way that actually amounts to eligible subject matter. It is not sufficient that the claims describe interactions between devices or that the claims occur in the context of the internet. This merely linked the judicial exception to a generic computing environment. Applicant is not addressing a problem specifically caused by technology such as a webpage that redirects a user to a third-party website. It is not sufficient that Applicant’s claims have utility.
Applicant argued that they recite a combination of steps which recite something other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant merely alleges its claims recite an inventive concept and provides no analysis as to how its claims amount to something other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional. Again Applicant focuses on utility when arguing that its claims are non-conventional. The use of sensors, modules, and programs to do specified actions does not mean that the claims are non-conventional. For example, using a water sensor to detect the presence of water and perform actions based on the detection of water, is well understood, routine, and conventional.
Applicant again argued that Examiner has not provided the proper evidence/analysis that hat is required by Berkheimer. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant is mistaken that Examiner must provide evidence that the underlying abstract idea is well-understood, routine and conventional. It is the additional elements that must be shown to be well-understood, routine and conventional. Outside of the abstract idea, there is only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Examiner provided evidence that these are well-understood, routine and conventional limitations, citing to Applicant’s specification which shows the claims may be implemented using general purpose computing components. Examiner has provided the proper evidence as required by Berkheimer.
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 argued that Jacob does not teach an action module performing various steps. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Under the BRI of an action module, any type of software reads on this limitation. Thus the portions of Jacob and Pierce that teach the underlying step performed by the action module read on those claim limitations. Jacob teaches the acquiring, analyzing, ascertaining steps; detecting that an event occurred. Pierce teaches automatically contacting a repair service for the event. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). What is required of the prior art is that it teaches the ability to perform the limitations, not that the underlying motivation of the reference needs to be the same. It is irrelevant as to why Jacob detects a disaster event, all that matters is that Jacob teaches the ability to detect that a disaster has occurred. Similarly, Pierce is being use to teach the ability to automatically contact a repair service provider, it is irrelevant as to how Pierce decides which repair service provider to contact because Jacob is used to teach the underlying basis of the decision.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
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 the disaster event based on data received,
analyzing the received data to classify a disaster type of the detected disaster event,
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,
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; 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; 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5, 13, 14, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob, US Patent Application NO. 2023/0229123 in view of Pierce, US Patent Application Publication NO. 2017/0109828.
Regarding claims 20, 21, and 23;
Jacob teaches
(Claim 21) A computer-implemented building automation system for a structure, the system configured to detect a disaster event associated with the structure and to accelerate recovery of the structure therefrom, the system having one or more sensors, each adapted to detect a physical property of the structure and to record and communicate data related to its corresponding detected physical property from the disaster event, the system comprising:
a processing hardware set to which the one or more sensors are communicatively coupled thereto, and a computer-readable storage device medium, wherein the processing hardware set is structured, connected and/or programmed to run program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage medium, the program instructions including:
See Jacob [0162] FIG. 15 illustrates an exemplary configuration of a user system 1502 operated by a user 1501, such as homeowner 102 (shown in FIG. 1). User system 1502 may include, but is not limited to, client system 1414. In the exemplary embodiment, user system 1502 may include a processor 1505 for executing instructions. In some embodiments, executable instructions may be stored in a memory area 1510. Processor 1505 may include one or more processing units, for example, a multi-core configuration. Memory area 1510 may be any device allowing information, such as executable instructions and/or written works to be stored and/or retrieved. Memory area 1510 may include one or more computer readable media.
a detection module programmed to detect the disaster event based on data received by the processing hardware set from at least one of the one or more sensors,
See Jacob [0186] In certain embodiments, the method may further include detecting, by the one or more processors, an abnormal condition of the building.
a type module programmed to analyze the received data to classify a disaster type of the detected disaster event, and
See Jacob [0036] Exemplary sensors placed about a home and/or embedded within building or construction materials (such embedded throughout construction materials and/or embedded within certain or limited amounts of construction materials that are used at a specific or strategic locations within the home—such as at corners of a roof or a foundation), are shown in the Figures and discussed further below. The sensors may be “smart sensors” and each may include one or more types of sensors (water, temperature, pressure, odor, moisture, etc.), processors, power units, batteries, clocks, GPS (Global Positioning System) units, memory units, instructions, clocks, actuators, transmitter, receivers, transceivers, other electronic components, miniature electronics and circuitry, etc.
[0037] More specifically, systems and methods are described herein for maintaining a building and monitoring the health of the building, such as a residential house. In one embodiment, a building monitoring system may be provided. The building monitoring system may receive sensor data from various building sensors positioned (and/or embedded within construction material) at installation points within or around the building. The building sensors provide data that may be used to analyze the integrity of a building's systems such as, for example, the roofing system, the thermal system (e.g., insulation, heating, air conditioning), the structural/facial system (e.g., wooden components supporting the building or providing an exterior surface of the building), and/or the foundation system (e.g., concrete foundation, sump pump). The monitoring system may collect and analyze the sensor data and, upon detection of a system compromise or failure, generate a message and/or an alert indicating the nature of the compromise.
[0041] The technical effect achieved by this system may be at least one of: (i) early detection of building system failures; (ii) detecting system failures at less accessible or less frequented locations; (iii) detecting various types of system failures; (iv) correlating data from various sensor data sources and sensor types to determine system failures and/or building system health status; and/or (v) creating and storing a historical record of a building's health and improvements made to the building over time.
[0006] The present embodiments may relate to systems and methods for earlier detection of failures or compromises in building system, potentially allowing building owners (e.g., homeowners) to remedy the failures before additional damage is done to the building. A building monitoring system may collect sensor data from one or more sensors positioned at failure detection points within or around the building. The sensors may be strategically placed throughout a home (such as in the foundation, attic, basement, roof, etc.) and may be embedded within the home's construction or building material, or a selected portion thereof. The building monitoring system may analyze the sensor data and/or provide information to the building owners, such as alerts and/or recommended remedial actions when a building system failure and/or insurance-related event (such as a leaking roof, crack in the foundation, water or other moisture (e.g., heating oil, natural gas, etc.) leak) is detected and/or expected from the sensor data analysis. The information collected may be used by an insurance provider, such as to determine recommended mitigating actions, prepare insurance claims, handle insurance claims, estimate repair costs, and/or generate or adjust insurance policies, premiums, rates, and/or discounts (such as for homeowners or renters insurance).
an action module programmed to, based on the disaster type classified by the type module:
acquire, from data sources available to the action module, access to an insurance carrier's policy for the structure,
See Jacob [0188] For instance, the one or more sensors may be water, moisture, vibration, thermal, or insect sensors, and the damage that occurred to the building detected by the one or more sensors is water, moisture, vibration, thermal, or insect related damage, respectively. The message may include recommendations to the building or home owner, such as contact information for appropriate third party contractors located in the customers region or area that may be skilled to repair the building and/or mitigate the damage to the building.
analyze 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,
See Jacob [0188] For instance, the one or more sensors may be water, moisture, vibration, thermal, or insect sensors, and the damage that occurred to the building detected by the one or more sensors is water, moisture, vibration, thermal, or insect related damage, respectively. The message may include recommendations to the building or home owner, such as contact information for appropriate third party contractors located in the customers region or area that may be skilled to repair the building and/or mitigate the damage to the building.
ascertain, via data sources accessible by the action module, contact information for the selected at least one repair service provider, and
See Jacob [0188] For instance, the one or more sensors may be water, moisture, vibration, thermal, or insect sensors, and the damage that occurred to the building detected by the one or more sensors is water, moisture, vibration, thermal, or insect related damage, respectively. The message may include recommendations to the building or home owner, such as contact information for appropriate third party contractors located in the customers region or area that may be skilled to repair the building and/or mitigate the damage to the building.
Jacob does not teach this claim limitation.
automatically initiate communications using the ascertained contact information with the selected at least one repair service provider to accelerate recovery of the structure from the disaster event.
Pierce teaches:
automatically initiate communications using the ascertained contact information with the selected at least one repair service provider to accelerate recovery of the structure from the disaster event.
See Pierce [0004] According to some possible implementations, a non-transitory computer-readable medium may store one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, may cause the one or more processors to detect a vehicle accident associated with a vehicle. The one or more instructions, when executed by one or more processors, may cause the one or more processors to automatically obtain, based on detecting the vehicle accident, information associated with identifying an insurance policy associated with the vehicle. The one or more instructions, when executed by one or more processors, may cause the one or more processors to automatically initiate, based on obtaining the information identifying the insurance policy associated with the vehicle, an insurance claim for the vehicle accident. The one or more instructions, when executed by one or more processors, may cause the one or more processors to provide, for display via a user interface, information indicating that the insurance claim for the vehicle accident is initiated.
[0044] In some implementations, user device 210 may cause non-emergency assistance to be provided to the user. For example, user device 210 may transmit a message to cloud server 220 to cause cloud server 220 to dispatch a tow-truck to a location of user device 210. Additionally, or alternatively, user device 210 may directly transmit an alert to a tow-truck company to request assistance for the user. In some implementations, user device 210 may automatically locate a repair shop, within a threshold proximity of user device 210, for the user. For example, user device 210 may request, from cloud server 220, information identifying a repair shop authorized to perform repairs on a vehicle of a user of user device 210 based on an insurance policy of the user. In this case, user device 210 may receive information identifying a location of the repair shop, contact information for the repair shop, directions to the repair shop, or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, user device 210 may cause an alert to be transmitted to the repair shop to indicate that a vehicle is to be transported to the repair shop, to identify insurance and/or billing information associated with the vehicle, or the like.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the insurance claim process of the primary reference, the ability to automatically contact a service provider as taught by Pierce since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additional motivation includes contacting a service provider allows for the user to get their building repaired.
Regarding claim 3 and 18;
Jacob does not teach this claim.
Pierce teaches:
(Claim 3) The system of claim 21, wherein the action module automatically initiates communications with the at least one selected repair service provider by initiating a phone call, a text message conversation, an online chat, or a combination thereof.
See Pierce [0044] In some implementations, user device 210 may cause non-emergency assistance to be provided to the user. For example, user device 210 may transmit a message to cloud server 220 to cause cloud server 220 to dispatch a tow-truck to a location of user device 210. Additionally, or alternatively, user device 210 may directly transmit an alert to a tow-truck company to request assistance for the user. In some implementations, user device 210 may automatically locate a repair shop, within a threshold proximity of user device 210, for the user. For example, user device 210 may request, from cloud server 220, information identifying a repair shop authorized to perform repairs on a vehicle of a user of user device 210 based on an insurance policy of the user. In this case, user device 210 may receive information identifying a location of the repair shop, contact information for the repair shop, directions to the repair shop, or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, user device 210 may cause an alert to be transmitted to the repair shop to indicate that a vehicle is to be transported to the repair shop, to identify insurance and/or billing information associated with the vehicle, or the like.
[0052] As further shown by FIG. 5B, and by reference number 520, cloud server 220 is caused to transmit a message to tow-truck dispatch device 522 to dispatch a tow-truck to a location of user device 210. As shown by reference number 524, cloud server 220 is caused to transmit a message to rental car company device 526 to reserve a rental car for the user of user device 210. In this way, user device 210 and/or cloud server 220 initiate services (e.g., tow-truck service, car rental service, etc.) for a user, thereby reducing a usage of user device 210 by the user to initiate the services relative to the user initiating the services via a phone call.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the insurance claim process of the primary reference, the ability to contact a service provider as taught by Pierce since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additional motivation includes contacting a service provider allows for the user to get their building repaired.
Regarding claim 4 and 19;
Jacob does not teach this claim.
Pierce teaches:
(Claim 4) The system of claim 21, further comprising at least one interactive graphical user interface element to initiate contact with the at least one selected repair service provider.
See Pierce [0044] In some implementations, user device 210 may cause non-emergency assistance to be provided to the user. For example, user device 210 may transmit a message to cloud server 220 to cause cloud server 220 to dispatch a tow-truck to a location of user device 210. Additionally, or alternatively, user device 210 may directly transmit an alert to a tow-truck company to request assistance for the user. In some implementations, user device 210 may automatically locate a repair shop, within a threshold proximity of user device 210, for the user. For example, user device 210 may request, from cloud server 220, information identifying a repair shop authorized to perform repairs on a vehicle of a user of user device 210 based on an insurance policy of the user. In this case, user device 210 may receive information identifying a location of the repair shop, contact information for the repair shop, directions to the repair shop, or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, user device 210 may cause an alert to be transmitted to the repair shop to indicate that a vehicle is to be transported to the repair shop, to identify insurance and/or billing information associated with the vehicle, or the like.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the insurance claim process of the primary reference, the ability to contact a service provider as taught by Pierce since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additional motivation includes contacting a service provider allows for the user to get their building repaired.
Regarding claim 5;
The system of claim 21, the action module is further programmed to determine a location for the disaster event and use the determined location to identify the at least one service provider within a given distance from the disaster event, instead of or in addition to the at least one selected service provider from the identified preferred providers of the insurance carrier.
See Jacob [0122] In the exemplary embodiment, sensors 602 may include at least one joist sensor 602d proximate (e.g., attached to) one or more flooring joists 620, as well as at least one joist sensor 602e proximate (e.g., attached to) one or more ceiling joists 212 (e.g., near an intersection with vertical support 610). Further, sensors 602 may include at least one roofing frame sensor 602f proximate (e.g., attached to) one or more locations along roofing frame 210 (e.g., along rafter 214).
[0123] In the exemplary embodiment, building monitoring system 110 may receive insect data from sensors 602 and/or analyze the insect data to detect, for example, the presence of termites near or within wooden components building 150 such as, for example, structural system 600.
[0185] In some embodiments, the moisture alert message may include one or more recommendations to the user, including contact information for at least one third-party contractor located in a region of the building for addressing the detected presence of moisture in the building. The method may further include transmitting, by the one or more processors, the sample moisture level to an insurance provider remote server via wireless communication, receiving, by the one or more processors, at least one of: (a) an insurance-related recommendation, (b) an insurance update, and (c) a pre-populated insurance claim associated with any damage to the building caused by the moisture at the first location…
Regarding claim 13;
The system of claim 21, wherein the action module is further programmed to query at least one different sensor in addition to the data received by the detection module from the at least one sensor of the one or more sensors for different sensor data to confirm the disaster event, the at least one different sensor arranged proximate to the at least one sensor of the one or more sensors, or proximate to a sensor of a same type as the at least one sensor of the one or more sensors whose data was received by the detection mode.
See Jacob [0112] In some embodiments, sensors 508 may be placed at varying heights, or at multiple horizontal positions, along foundation wall 452 and/or finished wall 456. Some areas may, for example, exhibit greater likelihood of developing cracks, such as lower regions of foundation wall 452, or at a junction between foundation wall 452 and foundation floor 544. In some embodiments, a matrix of sensors 508, such as array of water sensors 320 (shown in FIG. 3), may be provided on foundation wall 452, either inside (e.g., as an array of sensors 508a) or outside (e.g., as an array of sensors 508f), along foundation floor 544 (e.g., as an array of sensors 508d), and/or on an interior surface of interior layer 470 (e.g., as an array of sensors 508b). In some embodiments, exterior walls 431 of main floor interior 430 may be configured with moisture sensors 508 similar to finished wall 456.
[0211] The one or more processors may be configured to: adjust, update, or generate insurance policies based upon functionality associated with the at least one water (or other type of) sensor embedded in construction material and located throughout an insured home that prevents, alleviates, and/or mitigates damage to the insured home, such as providing discounts or lower premiums on home insurance to insureds that have the embedded sensor functionality that mitigates home damage. The building monitoring computer system further comprising one or more vibration, thermal, or insect sensors, and the damage that occurred to the building detected by those sensors is vibration, thermal, or insect related damage, respectively.
Regarding claim 14;
The system of claim 21, wherein the action module is further programmed to prepopulate an electronic form provided by the at least one selected repair service provider with information associated with the disaster event.
See Jacob [0185] In some embodiments, the moisture alert message may include one or more recommendations to the user, including contact information for at least one third-party contractor located in a region of the building for addressing the detected presence of moisture in the building. The method may further include transmitting, by the one or more processors, the sample moisture level to an insurance provider remote server via wireless communication, receiving, by the one or more processors, at least one of: (a) an insurance-related recommendation, (b) an insurance update, and (c) a pre-populated insurance claim associated with any damage to the building caused by the moisture at the first location, and/or causing, by the one or more processors, the received at least one of (a) insurance-related recommendation, (b) insurance update, and (c) pre-populated insurance claim to be displayed on the mobile device of the user for review. The at least one moisture sensor may wirelessly communicate with at least one of: (i) a smart home controller; (ii) the mobile device of the user; and (iii) a remote server, wherein at least one of (i) the smart home controller; (ii) the mobile device of the user; (iii) the remote server; and (iv) the at least one water sensor may perform at least one of: (1) analysis of the at least one water sensor signal, and (2) determination to generate the moisture alert.
Regarding claim 22;
The system of claim 21, wherein the action module is configured to search a data store associated with one or more of the insurance carrier, a home automation company serving the structure, and a security company serving the structure, the data store accessible via an API or via an internet search.
See Jacob [0006] The building monitoring system may analyze the sensor data and/or provide information to the building owners, such as alerts and/or recommended remedial actions when a building system failure and/or insurance-related event (such as a leaking roof, crack in the foundation, water or other moisture (e.g., heating oil, natural gas, etc.) leak) is detected and/or expected from the sensor data analysis. The information collected may be used by an insurance provider, such as to determine recommended mitigating actions, prepare insurance claims, handle insurance claims, estimate repair costs, and/or generate or adjust insurance policies, premiums, rates, and/or discounts (such as for homeowners or renters insurance).
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob in view of Pierce as applied to claims 3-5, 13, 14, and 18-23 above, and further in view of Bray, US Patent Application NO. 2016/0239921.
Regarding claim 2 and 17;
Jacob does not teach this claim.
Bray teaches:
(Claim 2) The system of claim 21, wherein the identified plurality of preferred repair service providers is represented as an approved list of repair service providers associated with the insurance carrier.
See Bray [0055] The storage device 110 of the estimates server 100 is adapted to store the information received from the sensor devices 114, store processed and formatted information, store estimates of the damage, store lists of repair entities based on geographical locations and/or store lists of repair entities approved for each of the insurance entities 116. In one embodiment, the items may comprise vehicles and the estimates of the damage may be stored and sortable by vehicle VIN number. In another embodiment, the stored list of repair entities approved by a certain insurance entity may be provided to other users who have the same insurance entity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the insurance claim process of the combined references, the ability to have an approved list of service providers as taught by Bray since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additional motivation includes having approved companies decreases the chance of an out of network claim.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob in view of Pierce as applied to claims 3-5, 13, 14, and 18-23 above, and further in view of Huynh, US Patent Application NO. 2015/0227893.
Regarding claim 8;
Jacob does not teach this claim.
Huynh teaches:
The system of claim 21, wherein the action module is further programmed to present at least one question to a user associated with the structure to assess an extent of the disaster event.
See Huynh [0071] FIGS. 3-15 illustrate one example implementation of method 100 as carried out by system 20. FIGS. 3-9 illustrate an example modifiable hierarchical scripted questionnaire 200. Questionnaire 200 facilitates a collection of information about a property and property damage to create a repair estimate. Questionnaire 200 is launched from within a claim file, wherein users see screens that include questions that are driven by an underlying decision tree that guides the estimation process. In the example shown by FIG. 3, a user is prompted by the scripted questionnaire 200 to input information about a room of the building for which a repair estimate is to be generated. As a person progresses through the questionnaire to define rooms, a tree 202 is modified to reflect such progress. FIGS. 4 and 5 illustrate how selections made in the "general room details" in FIG. 3 result in the hierarchical scripted questionnaire being modified. FIG. 4 illustrates the operation of script 200 during which the user inputs that the type of room is a bathroom. By way of contrast, FIG. 5 illustrates the operation of script 200 during which user inputs of the type of room is a kitchen. As a result, the script being presented in FIG. 5 is modified to prompt for inputs specifically pertaining to kitchens such as prompts 203 kitchen countertops and prompts 204 for kitchen appliances.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the insurance claim process of the combined references, the ability to present questions as taught by Huynh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additional motivation includes presenting questions increases the effectiveness of the claims process.
Regarding claim 9;
Jacob does not teach this claim.
Pierce teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein the action module is further programmed to present a plurality of instructions to the user for remedying the disaster event based on the user’s response to the at least one question.
See Pierce [0044] In some implementations, user device 210 may cause non-emergency assistance to be provided to the user. For example, user device 210 may transmit a message to cloud server 220 to cause cloud server 220 to dispatch a tow-truck to a location of user device 210. Additionally, or alternatively, user device 210 may directly transmit an alert to a tow-truck company to request assistance for the user. In some implementations, user device 210 may automatically locate a repair shop, within a threshold proximity of user device 210, for the user. For example, user device 210 may request, from cloud server 220, information identifying a repair shop authorized to perform repairs on a vehicle of a user of user device 210 based on an insurance policy of the user. In this case, user device 210 may receive information identifying a location of the repair shop, contact information for the repair shop, directions to the repair shop, or the like. Additionally, or alternatively, user device 210 may cause an alert to be transmitted to the repair shop to indicate that a vehicle is to be transported to the repair shop, to identify insurance and/or billing information associated with the vehicle, or the like.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the insurance claim process of the primary reference, the ability to present suggestions/instructions as taught by Pierce since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additional motivation includes presenting suggestions increases the effectiveness of the claims process.
Regarding claim 10;
Jacob does not teach this claim.
Huynh teaches:
The system of claim 21, wherein the action module is further programmed to present educational diagnosis information to the user for assisting with the type of disaster event.
See Huynh [0002] Various companies, such as insurance companies, field service companies, mitigation companies and the like often hire contractors to carry out the repair of a damaged property or the preservation of an acquired property. Estimates are typically prepared to identify the tasks to be completed and their associated costs. Current processes for generating such estimates, reviewing such estimates and managing repair and/or maintenance projects are difficult and time-consuming while producing estimates/bids that may be ambiguous, incomplete and inconsistent.
[0131] In some implementations, the logic of module 2042 may determine that a received response contradicts an earlier response or raises a question regarding the accuracy of an earlier response. For example, prior history or statistics may indicate that a first response to a first question is usually accompanied by a particular second response to a second later question. In circumstances where the predicted response is not received, module 2042 may automatically return the user to the earlier response (such as by automatically going back to the screen of the earlier question associated with early response) and request confirmation, possibly displaying and noting to the user the reason for questioning the accuracy of the earlier response or the subsequent response which seemingly contradicts earlier response. The earlier response being questioned may comprise a response entered by the person or may comprise an earlier response that was prefilled by generator 2022. In some implementations, module 2022, based upon a subsequently received response to a question, may return to an earlier portion of the questionnaire to present additional or alternative questions that were not previously presented as part of the questionnaire but which are being later presented for response as a result of the subsequently received response to subsequent question in the questionnaire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the insurance claim process of the combined references, the ability to present diagnosis information as taught by Huynh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additional motivation includes presenting questions increases the effectiveness of the claims process.
Regarding claim 11;
Jacob does not teach this claim.
Huynh teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the educational diagnosis information comprises educational content for diagnosing and remedying the disaster event.
See Huynh [0131] In some implementations, the logic of module 2042 may determine that a received response contradicts an earlier response or raises a question regarding the accuracy of an earlier response. For example, prior history or statistics may indicate that a first response to a first question is usually accompanied by a particular second response to a second later question. In circumstances where the predicted response is not received, module 2042 may automatically return the user to the earlier response (such as by automatically going back to the screen of the earlier question associated with early response) and request confirmation, possibly displaying and noting to the user the reason for questioning the accuracy of the earlier response or the subsequent response which seemingly contradicts earlier response. The earlier response being questioned may comprise a response entered by the person or may comprise an earlier response that was prefilled by generator 2022. In some implementations, module 2022, based upon a subsequently received response to a question, may return to an earlier portion of the questionnaire to present additional or alternative questions that were not previously presented as part of the questionnaire but which are being later presented for response as a result of the subsequently received response to subsequent question in the questionnaire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the insurance claim process of the combined references, the ability to present educational information as taught by Huynh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additional motivation includes presenting questions increases the effectiveness of the claims process.
Regarding claim 12;
Jacob does not teach this claim.
Huynh teaches:
The ststem of claim 10, wherein the action module is further programmed to present educational diagnosis information as part of a post-disaster follow-up at some time after the disaster event.
See Huynh [0092] FIGS. 29-35 illustrate exemplary portions of interface 530 on mobile devices of field crew. FIG. 29 illustrates an example screen interface 1010 provided by interface 530. Interface 1010, accessed by the field service crew, provides a field service crew with information regarding a job, including prefilled information (as discussed above). FIG. 30 illustrates an example screen interface 1012 provided by interface 530. Interface 1012 presents the field crew member with the hierarchical modifiable scripted questionnaire during inspection. In the example illustrated the crew workers are prompted to input what type of room is being inspected, its size and what appliances are present. As shown by FIG. 31, which illustrates a follow-up screen interface 1014, based upon such answers, the crewmember is prompted to input additional information based upon input received in interface 1012. Example photo 606 is further prompted for input. As shown by FIG. 32, interface 530 provides an interface screen 1014 presenting the crewmember with a route map for the next stop once the prior property inspection has been completed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the insurance claim process of the combined references, the ability to present follow-up information as taught by Huynh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additional motivation includes presenting questions increases the effectiveness of the claims process.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 9-6 CDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on 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 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694