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
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed9/3/2025. Claims 1, 11 and 20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/3/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Even assuming, arguendo, that amended claim 1 recites a judicial exception, amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Prong 2, at least because amended claim 1 as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the alleged judicial exception by providing improvements to the functioning of a computer. More specifically, amended claim 1 improves a chatbot's capability of generating accurate property improvement recommendations. In other words, amended claim 1 reduces hallucinations of a chatbot when the chatbot is used to generate property improvement recommendations… Accordingly, the application does not describe the generic use of a chatbot. Rather, the application relates to improving upon user-provided prompts by generating new prompts which incorporate ground-truth information that is relevant to the user-provided prompt. Such new prompts may lead a chatbot to generate responses more accurately reflect the property associated with the user. Said another way, by generating an improved prompt, the techniques described in the application improves the system's ability to receive accurate property improvement recommendations while also reducing hallucinations that are common in conventional usage of chatbots. Amended claim 1 reflects the improvements described by the specification, and integrates any allegedly recited abstract ideas into a practical application thereof in accordance with MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). In particular, amended claim 1 recites, in part, "analyzing... the first prompt to generate a second prompt, wherein generating the second prompt is based upon the first prompt, data associated with the property and one or more property metrics associated with the property; [and] transmitting,... to a chatbot, the second prompt to generate a response." Accordingly, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is patent eligible at least under Step 2A, Prong 2. Independent claims 11 and 20 have been amended to recite limitations similar to those recited by amended claim 1, and therefore are patent eligible for at least reasons similar to those discussed above. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 incorporate by reference each and every element recited by their respective independent claim, and therefore are patent eligible for at least reasons similar to those discussed above. Thus, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal and reconsideration of the rejections of the amended claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ”, (see remarks , pg. 10-12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for providing property improvement recommendations, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as individuals can reassess a message communicated from one individual to reframe the message and communicate the analyzed message to an entity for a response. The computing elements such as “computer-implemented method, processors, chatbot, user interface in claim 1; computer system, processors, memory, chatbot, user interface in claim 11; computer readable storage medium, computer readable instructions, processors, chatbot, user interface in claim 20” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for providing property improvement recommendations.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 11 and 20 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “providing property improvement recommendations, the method comprising: receiving, a first prompt associated with a property; analyzing, the first prompt to generate a second prompt, wherein generating the second prompt is based upon the first prompt, data associated with the property and one or more property metrics associated with the property; transmitting, the second prompt to generate a response, the response comprising a recommended action associated with the property; and presenting, the response to the user” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (computer-implemented method, processors, chatbot, user interface in claim 1; computer system, processors, memory, chatbot, user interface in claim 11; computer readable storage medium, computer readable instructions, processors, chatbot, user interface in claim 20) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (computer-implemented method, processors, chatbot, user interface in claim 1; computer system, processors, memory, chatbot, user interface in claim 11; computer readable storage medium, computer readable instructions, processors, chatbot, user interface in claim 20). The computer-implemented method, processors, chatbot, user interface in claim 1; computer system, processors, memory, chatbot, user interface in claim 11; computer readable storage medium, computer readable instructions, processors, chatbot, user interface in claim 20, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the computer-implemented method in claims 2-10; processors in claims 2, 10 and 12; chatbot in claim 6 and 16; computer system in claims 12-19; database in claims 2 and 12; machine learning model in claims 4 and 14; image, audio, video and telematics data in claims 5 and 15, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628