DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 09/22/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20-25 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 3, 8, 11, 16, and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-16 of Applicant’s response filed 09/22/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 13-14, that the implementation of the invention using a convolutional neural network, user device, and a display does not represent abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully agrees, and notes that these limitations amount to the mere requirement to apply the abstract idea using a machine learning model as well as the mere requirement to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer component (a display). Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 14-15, that the claims, through the use of the a CNN and display set forth a technical improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that no such technical improvement in the display itself, similar to that of Core Wireless, is recited by the claims. Rather, the claims merely recite one or more abstract ideas (identifying structural features in images, modifying image regions, displaying modified regions, detection of user interactions with regions, and retrieval and presentation of information associated with the interaction) along with the requirement to implement them using a display. Such elements do not improve the user interface itself, but merely require the implementation of such abstract idea steps using a display. Therefore, no technical improvement is recited, and Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 15-16, that the claims recite limitations which add something other than that which is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field through the use of the CNN and display. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that these limitations, recited at this level of breadth, amount to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using such machine learning models. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15:
“improvement recommendation engine” which “generates, stores, etc.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 17 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, a machine, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 9, and 17, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receive information regarding a target property associated with a user; (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive information regarding a target property; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
aggregate supplementary housing data; (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could aggregate this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
transmit an aggregation request to . . . a third-party data provider, wherein the third-party data provider is not associated with the user, and (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement this step using a set of generic computer components, a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could request this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
receive, in response to transmitting the aggregation request . . . the supplementary housing data, wherein the supplementary housing data comprises transactions that each correspond to a home repair type of a plurality of home repair types; (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement this step using a set of generic computer components, a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this information in response to a request; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
determine an insight regarding the target property based on the information regarding the target property and the supplementary housing data; (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine an insight based on this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
identify, using the transactions, a frequency of occurrence for each home repair type of the plurality of home repair types, and (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify a frequency of occurrence for home repair times using transaction data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
determine, using the frequency of occurrence for each home repair type of the plurality of home repair types, a particular home repair type that occurs with a frequency satisfying a predetermined threshold; (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a home repair type that occurs with a frequency satisfying a predetermined threshold; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
generate, based on the insight, a home improvement recommendation; (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a home improvement recommendation based on an insight; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
store the home improvement recommendation in a home repair profile; (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store a recommendation in a profile; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
generating. . . . a home improvement graphic based on the home improvement recommendation and the information regarding the target property, wherein the home improvement graphic depicts the home improvement recommendation on an illustration of the target property. . . (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a home improvement graphic based on a recommendation, wherein the graphic depicts the recommendation on an illustration of the target property; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
identifying. . . a structural feature within a synthetic target-property depiction in the home improvement graphic corresponding to the home improvement recommendation; (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify structural features within a target-property depiction in a graphic; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
modifying a region of the synthetic target-property depiction corresponding to the identified structural feature to indicate the home improvement recommendation; (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could modify a region of a property depiction corresponding to an identified structural feature to indicate a home improvement recommendation; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
displaying the modified synthetic target-property depiction. . . (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display a modified synthetic property depiction; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
and transmit, based on the home improvement recommendation, a home repair notification. . . wherein the home repair notification includes the home improvement graphic; (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send a home repair notification based on an improvement recommendation; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
receiving user interaction with the modified region corresponding to the identified structural feature; and (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a user interaction with a region corresponding to an identified feature; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
responsive to the user interaction, (i) displaying additional recommendation information associated with the identified structural feature, and (ii) displaying a summary of the need for repair or improvement corresponding to the identified structural feature. (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display this information in response to a user interaction; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair)
The above elements represent mental processes as a whole since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, these steps could be performed using the mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation and judgment. Furthermore, as a whole, these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
communications hardware configured to: (claims 1 and 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
improvement recommendation engine configured to: (claims 1 and 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
at/to a user device, wherein the user device is associated with the user. (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to: (claim 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . .the communications hardware is further configured to: transmit an aggregation request to an external storage device . . . (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . from a computing device associated with the third-party data provider. . . (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . by a property generation circuitry and using a conditional generative adversarial network (cGAN) comprising a generative machine-learning model and a discriminator machine-learning model. . . (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using cGAN comprising a machine learning model and a discriminator machine-learning model since the limitation merely uses these models as tools in their ordinary capacity to generate graphics, since the limitation merely recites the solution or outcome of using these models without indicating how the models arrive at the graphics, and since the models are recited at a high level of generality; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to limit the application of the abstract idea to the field of use of machine learning)
generated by the cGAN; (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using cGAN comprising a machine learning model and a discriminator machine-learning model since the limitation merely uses these models as tools in their ordinary capacity to generate graphics, since the limitation merely recites the solution or outcome of using these models without indicating how the models arrive at the graphics, and since the models are recited at a high level of generality; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to limit the application of the abstract idea to the field of use)
. . . using a convolutional neural network (CNN). . . (claims 1, 9, and 17; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a CNN since the limitation merely uses these models as tools in their ordinary capacity perform an existing function, since the limitation merely recites the solution or outcome of using these models without indicating how the models arrive solution or result, and since the models are recited at a high level of generality; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to limit the application of the abstract idea to the field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2, 4-7, 10, 12-15, 18, and 20-25, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2, 10, and 18:
wherein determining the insight regarding the target property comprises: comparing, by the improvement recommendation engine, the information regarding the target property to the supplementary housing data to identify a subset of the supplementary housing data, wherein the subset of the supplementary housing data comprises data about one or more properties included in the supplementary housing data that are most-similar to the target property;
deriving, by the improvement recommendation engine, occurrence of a plurality of home repairs from the subset of supplementary housing data;
and identifying, by the improvement recommendation engine and from the plurality of home repairs, a home repair trend relevant to the target property, wherein the home repair trend comprises the insight regarding the target property.
The above elements recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, these steps could be performed using the mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation and judgment. Furthermore, these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair.
Claims 4, 12, and 20:
wherein generating the home improvement recommendation comprises: deriving, by the improvement recommendation engine, a plurality of candidate recommendations based on the insight;
determining, by the improvement recommendation engine, a home impact score for each of the plurality of candidate recommendations;
and selecting, by the improvement recommendation engine, a particular candidate recommendation having a highest home impact score as the home improvement recommendation.
The above elements recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, these steps could be performed using the mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation and judgment. Furthermore, these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair.
Claims 5, 13, 24:
wherein the home repair profile stores multiple home improvement recommendations.
The above elements merely alter the storage step regarding the home repair profile and therefore further recite one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 6, 14, 25:
transmitting, by the communications hardware, a home improvement selection request to the user device;
and receiving, by the communications hardware and from the user device, a selection including the home improvement recommendation, wherein transmitting the home repair notification to the user device occurs in response to receiving the selection.
The above elements recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, these steps could be performed using the mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation and judgment. Furthermore, these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair.
Claims 7 and 15:
automatically selecting, by the improvement recommendation engine, the home improvement recommendation from the multiple home improvement recommendations included in the home repair profile based on the home impact score, wherein transmitting the home repair notification to the user device occurs in response to automatically selecting the home improvement recommendation.
The above elements recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, these steps could be performed using the mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation and judgment. Furthermore, these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair.
Claims 21, 22, and 23:
detect an occurrence of an automatic trigger event; and.
in response to detecting the occurrence of the automatic trigger event, transmit an electronic request to the user device, wherein the information regarding the target property is received based on transmitting the electronic request.
The above elements recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, these steps could be performed using the mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation and judgment (detecting an occurrence of a trigger event and sending a request to a user which causes the information to be received). Furthermore, these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions since a commercial home improvement company would perform these steps in evaluating which portions of a user’s home need repair.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2, 4-7, 10, 12-15, 18, and 20-25, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
