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
Claims 1-20, as originally filed 12/11/2023, are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1, 7, and 13 being independent). The applicant’s claim for benefit of provisional application 63/387096, filed 12/13/2022 has been received and acknowledged.
Claim Objections
In independent claim 7, line 8 has "Wherein" capitalized, when it should be --wherein--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: a “modular system”, “data collection tools”, a “transmission platform”, a “analysis platform”, “automation features”, a “AI system”, “user interface tools and enhancement features”, a “holistic systems architecture” in Claim 1, and a “data processing module and architecture” in Claim 7, and a “modular digital system” in Claim 13.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 include the limitations of “automation features”, “user interface tools”, “smart assistant and IOT devices”, “tailored suggestions or actions”, “holistic systems architecture”, “smart assistant and IOT devices”, “data collection tool”, “customizing the collected data to reflect current observed changes”, “data processing module”, or “module digital system”, and “hosted service platform. However, the specification provides no support for those limitations described above.
Dependent claims (2-6, 8-12, and 14-20) stand rejected also, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation (e.g., “modular system” “data collection tools”, “transmission platform”, “automation features”, “AI system”, “user interface tools and enhancement features”, “data processing module”, or “module digital system”) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Since the specification fails to sufficiently disclose the module to perform the claimed function in view of what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, the claim is indefinite under 112(b) (see MPEP 2181.II.B) because the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected to the phrases “IOT” and “AI” that include(s) an acronym that is a word formed by abbreviating a phrase by combining certain letters of words in the phrase, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
In independent claim 7, line 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In independent claim 13 says it's a “system” in the preamble, however, the limitations in the body of the claim read as method steps. Claims 14-20, all dependent upon claim 13, say “The method of claim 13”, however, as previously noted, claim 13 says “system” in the preamble.
Dependent claims (2-6, 8-12, and 14-20) stand rejected also, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
Claim 1, 7, and 13 are rejected as software per se. Further, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention (e.g., “A customizable modular system integrating client applications, specialized tools ….”) is directed to non-statutory subject matter, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention (e.g., “A customizable data processing and service provision system comprising: A data processing module ….”) is directed to non-statutory subject matter, and claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention (e.g., “A modular digital system operable for providing equitable access to standard of living improvements, comprising: ….”) is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per MPEP 2106.03, non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. The claim does not positively recite any elements that necessarily constitute a system or apparatus, such as computer hardware. It is not clear what structure is included or excluded by the claim language. The structural limitations of these claims are interpreted as computer code or software per-se and are not statutory. The program and functions are not claimed as embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable media and are functional descriptive material per se and are considered to be software per se, which is not statutory (see MPEP 2106.03). Examiner recommends amending the claim to clearly include hardware in order to overcome this rejection. Additionally, any amendments must be fully supported by the specification.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step (1): In the instant case, the independent claims (e.g., 1, 7, and 13) are directed towards to a method for providing tailored suggestions, actions, or services using tools to an entity which contains the steps of learning, providing, collecting, customizing, integrating, using, analyzing, utilizing, and implementing. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1, 7, and 13 are direct to a system, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for providing tailored suggestions, actions, or services using tools to an entity is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: proving … tailored suggestions…, collecting… data…, customizing… the collected data…, integrating… the collected data…, using… data to inform…, collecting… community data…, analyzing… the data…, customizing… access to services…, utilizing… hosted service platforms…, and implementing…. dynamic learning algorithms…
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: 1) “data collection tools”, “transmission platforms”, “analysis platform”, “AI”, “IOT devices”, and “user interface tools” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g. “apply it”) 2) “using the data processing module to integrate specialized tools”, “APIs ( application programming interface)”, “edge-to-cloud integration with IOT devices”, “integration of Al models and algorithms”, and “IOT platform integration” are not described in the specification in such a way require anything more than merely using a computer component as a tool, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to computer elements. (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (e.g., data collection tools, transmission platforms, analysis platform, AI, IOT devices, user interface tools, data processing module, specialized tools, APIs(application programming interface), edge-to-cloud integration with IOT devices, Al models and algorithms, IOT platform integration, Lorenz curves, hosted service platforms) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraphs [0062-0063]: public or hybrid wireless data link, sensor, processor, transceiver, specialized tools, data exchange and communication platform, private wireless data link, Client application, modular platform, user platform, Lorenz curve) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., data collection tools, transmission platforms, analysis platform, AI, IOT devices, user interface tools, data processing module, specialized tools, APIs(application programming interface), edge-to-cloud integration with IOT devices, Al models and algorithms, IOT platform integration, Lorenz curves, hosted service platforms) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea over a generic computer network with a generic computer element.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim 2, the step of “… designed to assimilate and process new data from a dynamically changing environment and to aid in the evaluation and follow-up of the public and private investments….” (i.e., processing data), in claim 3, the step of “… include interactive tools tailored to residents of a specific community, enabling operation of system tools….” (i.e., including tools), in claim 4, the step of “… include a modified Lorenz curve and vulnerability simulation tools (VST) for designing, tracking, and monitoring policy effectiveness in enhancing equity and improving living standards ...” (i.e., tracking policy), in claim 5, the step of “… enable third-party service providers to engage with and utilize the modular system tools and platform for delivering services related to transportation, healthcare, and similar tailored client-specific services...” (i.e., delivering services), in claim 6, the step of “… supports real-time, dynamic learning and adaptation to individual client interactions, facilitating equitable and effective policy...” (i.e., supporting learning and adaptation), in claim 8, the step of “… the community envelope data includes income, transportation, healthcare, housing standards, environmental safety data, ...” (i.e., including income, or healthcare as data), in claim 9, the step of “… for assessing and allocating resources based on building density regulations and urban design ...” (i.e., assessing and allocating resources), in claim 10, the step of “… provide individual applications tailored to the needs of residents...” (i.e., providing application), in claim 11, the step of “… including a feature for third-party service providers to access customized data ...” (i.e., accessing data), in claim 12, the step of “… utilizes a modified Lorenz curve to evaluate and design systems for equitable access to a targeted standard of living...” (i.e., evaluating systems), in claim 14, the step of “… wherein collecting community data includes gathering from public and private information ...” (i.e., collecting data), in claim 15, the step of “… the step of updating the Lorenz curves based on historical and current socio-economic data...” (i.e., updating Lorenz curves), in claim 16, the step of “… assists in traffic and public transport management....” (i.e., assisting… ), in claim 17, the step of “… customization is based on socio-economic, community zones and geographic factors....” (i.e., customizing… ), in claim 18, the step of “… facilitate cross- sector collaboration between various public and social services...” (i.e., facilitating… cross-sector collaboration), in claim 19, the step of “… applied for predictive modeling of public and social infrastructure requirements...” (i.e., applying… algorithms), and in claim 20, the step of “… incorporates cloud computing, real-time data processing, and predictive analytics for proactive policy making ...” (i.e., incorporating… real-time data processing) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Collecting and customizing data using tools to provide tailored suggestions, actions, or services to an entity is a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1, 7, and 13 above. Merely claiming the same process using tools to collect and customize data in order to provide tailored suggestions, actions, or services to an entity does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu Hansong et al. (hereinafter Liu), CN 112116503 A in view of Yogesh Simmhan et al. (hereinafter Yogesh), (Title: “Towards a Data-driven IOT Software Architecture for Smart City Utilities”, Date: March 7, 2018).
Regarding claim 1:
Liu discloses the following:
A customizable modular system integrating client applications, specialized tools, and hosted services structured to manage community services and associated infrastructure networks comprising: (Liu: See page 2, lines 7-11: “the cloud platform management system comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system, and the integration and analysis of the front-end management system data of the cell and the modular management of a plurality of systems are achieved by adopting cloud computing, big data and internet of things technologies.”)
data collection tools and transmission platform; (Liu: See page 10, lines 30-31: “data collected by each subsystem is collected to a cloud server for analysis and processing”)
data processing and analysis platform, automation features based on the data processing and analysis; (Liu: See page 30, lines 39-40: “data collected by each subsystem is collected to a cloud server connected with the subsystem for analysis and processing”)
Al system integrated with the data processing and analysis platform having features to learn and adapt over time; (Liu: See page 6, lines 37-42: “a complete community prevention and control system is formed, the technologies such as artificial intelligence and deep learning are adopted, the convenient, beneficial and beneficial service is provided for community residents, a comfortable ecological environment is created, a sustainable smart community is created, meanwhile, the accurate service is provided for the residents, and the management is carried out in the service; and transformation and upgrading of community management are realized through information sharing and resource integration”)
wherein the customizable modular system including the data collection tools and transmission platforms, the data processing and analysis platform, the automation features, the Al system, the user interface tools and enhancement features collaborate to form a holistic systems architecture of the modular system. (Liu: See page 6, lines 37-47: “the cloud platform management system comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system, and the integration and analysis of the front-end management system data of the cell and the modular management of a plurality of systems are achieved by adopting cloud computing, big data and internet of things technologies.”)
Liu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yogesh further teaches:
user interface tools and enhancement features based on one of smart assistant and IOT devices with edge computing capabilities integrated with the Al system to provide one of tailored suggestions or actions; and (Yogesh: See page 24, lines 7-16: “While the execution on the Cloud is much faster, when coupled with the Edge-to-Cloud latency for transferring the event from a sensor on campus to the Cloud (Fig. L e: ,) , execution on the Pi has a lower makespan. These validate the use of event analytics for both edge and Cloud computing. These analytics can provide trends , classifications, patterns, etc. that can then be used by humans to manually take decisions, or for rule-based systems to automatically enact controls. These actions can include automatically turning water-pumps on and off based on the water level, notifying users of contamination in a spatial water network region, reporting leaking pipes and taps to maintenance crew, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include the Internet of Things (IoT) that is emerging as the next big wave of digital presence for billions of devices on the Internet. Smart Cities are practical manifestation of IoT, with the goal of efficient, reliable and safe delivery of city utilities, as taught by Yogesh, in order to provide better services. (See Yogesh, pages 1-2)
Regarding claim 3:
Liu discloses the following:
The modular system according to claim 1, wherein the user interface tools include interactive tools tailored to residents of a specific community, enabling operation of system tools and integration with personal assistant devices. (Liu: See page 3, lines 37-47: “The cloud visitor management subsystem is matched with the unit building face access control subsystem and the entrance and exit personnel management subsystem for use, so that a remote door opening service is realized, a visitor inputs a room number on the unit building face access control all-in-one machine, the cloud visitor management subsystem can automatically call the room to bind a telephone number of a house owner and establish a call with a mobile phone of the house owner, after the house owner confirms the identity of the visitor, the # key is pressed on the mobile phone, the face access control all-in-one machine can automatically open a door, and the visitor enters the unit building”)
Regarding claim 6:
Liu discloses the following:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the Al-enabled application supports real-time, dynamic learning and adaptation to individual client interactions, facilitating equitable and effective policy and investment decisions. (Liu: See page 6, lines 37-42)
Regarding claim 7:
Liu discloses the following:
A customizable data processing and service provision system comprising: A data processing module and architecture configured for: a) collecting data from a defined geographical community envelope; b) customizing the collected data to reflect current observed changes; c) integrating the customized data into client applications and third-party services; d) using the data to inform and guide an equitable provision of services and benefits based on community-specific needs; and (Liu: See page 2, lines 7-67)
Regarding claim 9:
Liu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yogesh further teaches:
The system of claim 7, further comprising a module for assessing and allocating resources based on building density regulations and urban design within community zones. (Yogesh: See page 5, lines 13-21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include the Internet of Things (IoT) that is emerging as the next big wave of digital presence for billions of devices on the Internet. Smart Cities are practical manifestation of IoT, with the goal of efficient, reliable and safe delivery of city utilities, as taught by Yogesh, in order to provide better services. (See Yogesh, pages 1-2)
Regarding claim 10:
Liu discloses the following:
The system of claim 7, wherein the client application is structured to provide individual applications tailored to the needs of residents based on community envelope data. (Liu: See page 2, lines 7-67)
Regarding claim 11:
Liu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yogesh further teaches:
The system of claim 7, further including a feature for third-party service providers to access customized data under hosted services. (Yogesh: See page 22, lines 5-26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include the Internet of Things (IoT) that is emerging as the next big wave of digital presence for billions of devices on the Internet. Smart Cities are practical manifestation of IoT, with the goal of efficient, reliable and safe delivery of city utilities, as taught by Yogesh, in order to provide better services. (See Yogesh, pages 1-2)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yogesh in further view of Barbeau et al. (hereinafter Barbeau), US Patent Number 8138907 B2.
Regarding claim 2:
Liu and Yogesh do not explicitly disclose the following, however Barbeau further teaches:
The system according to claim 1, further comprising a customization platform within the specialized tools, designed to assimilate and process new data from a dynamically changing environment and to aid in the evaluation and follow-up of the public and private investments and policies. (Barbeau: See column 7 lines 25-44: “Potential benefits of the AVL system integration into the TAD system include 1) enhanced service to TAD riders that will support the benefits listed above, (2) design and development of an information distribution model for transit agencies so that AVL data will be accessible to outside agencies for a variety of public services without further cost to the agency or transit system, (3) innovation in the development of new methods of personalized communication of transit information to individuals through their mobile phones, and ( 4) promotion of investment by other public or private agencies in transit information distribution as a result of the accessible and low-cost real-time AVL information.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include global positioning systems and wireless communication systems to provide transit system information to riders of transit systems and remotely-located caretakers of the riders, as taught by Barbeau, in order to provide customized services. (See Barbeau, column 1, lines 20-66)
Claims 4, 12-13, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yogesh in further view of Kuznar et al. (hereinafter Kuznar), WO 2006/020941 A2.
Regarding claim 4:
Liu and Yogesh do not explicitly disclose the following, however Kuznar further teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the specialized tools include a modified Lorenz curve and vulnerability simulation tools (VST) for designing, tracking, and monitoring policy effectiveness in enhancing equity and improving living standards in various communities. (Kuznar: See page 33, lines 19-28; page 36, lines 1-11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include social simulation, and more specifically to methods and systems for agent based computer simulation of environmental variables and tendencies in individual and social decision making relating to the formation of coalitions and ethnic groups, as taught by Kuznar, in order to help to make better decisions. (See Kuznar, pages 33 and 36)
Regarding claim 12:
Liu and Yogesh do not explicitly disclose the following, however Kuznar further teaches:
The system of claim 7. where the system utilizes a modified Lorenz curve to evaluate and design systems for equitable access to a targeted standard of living. (Kuznar: See page 33, lines 19-28; page 36, lines 1-11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include social simulation, and more specifically to methods and systems for agent based computer simulation of environmental variables and tendencies in individual and social decision making relating to the formation of coalitions and ethnic groups, as taught by Kuznar, in order to help to make better decisions. (See Kuznar, pages 33 and 36)
Regarding claim 13:
Liu discloses the following:
A modular digital system operable for providing equitable access to standard of living improvements, comprising:
collecting community data through a modular digital system; (Liu: See page 2, lines 7-67)
utilizing hosted service platforms for comprehensive policy development; and (Liu: See page 2, lines 7-67)
implementing dynamic learning algorithms for system adaptation. (Liu: See page 2, lines 7-67)
Liu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yogesh further teaches:
integrating Al and loT for real-time data processing and application; (Yogesh: See page 2, lines 1-38)
customizing access to services based on client-specific needs; (Yogesh: See page 22, lines 5-26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include the Internet of Things (IoT) that is emerging as the next big wave of digital presence for billions of devices on the Internet. Smart Cities are practical manifestation of IoT, with the goal of efficient, reliable and safe delivery of city utilities, as taught by Yogesh, in order to provide better services. (See Yogesh, pages 1-2)
Liu and Yogesh do not explicitly disclose the following, however Kuznar further teaches:
analyzing the data using modified Lorenz curves and vulnerability metrics; (Kuznar: See page 33, lines 19-28; page 36, lines 1-11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include social simulation, and more specifically to methods and systems for agent based computer simulation of environmental variables and tendencies in individual and social decision making relating to the formation of coalitions and ethnic groups, as taught by Kuznar, in order to help to make better decisions. (See Kuznar, pages 33 and 36)
Regarding claim 15:
Liu and Yogesh do not explicitly disclose the following, however Kuznar further teaches:
The method of claim 13, further comprising the step of updating the Lorenz curves based on historical and current socio-economic data. (Kuznar: See page 33, lines 19-28; page 36, lines 1-11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include social simulation, and more specifically to methods and systems for agent based computer simulation of environmental variables and tendencies in individual and social decision making relating to the formation of coalitions and ethnic groups, as taught by Kuznar, in order to help to make better decisions. (See Kuznar, pages 33 and 36)
Regarding claim 17:
Liu and Yogesh do not explicitly disclose the following, however Kuznar further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein customization is based on socio-economic, community zones and geographic factors. (Kuznar: See page 22, lines 9-25)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include social simulation, and more specifically to methods and systems for agent based computer simulation of environmental variables and tendencies in individual and social decision making relating to the formation of coalitions and ethnic groups, as taught by Kuznar, in order to help to make better decisions. (See Kuznar, pages 33 and 36)
Regarding claim 19:
Liu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yogesh further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein dynamic learning algorithms are applied for predictive modeling of public and social infrastructure requirements based on. (Yogesh: See page 23, lines 1-26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include the Internet of Things (IoT) that is emerging as the next big wave of digital presence for billions of devices on the Internet. Smart Cities are practical manifestation of IoT, with the goal of efficient, reliable and safe delivery of city utilities, as taught by Yogesh, in order to provide better services. (See Yogesh, pages 1-2)
Regarding claim 20:
Liu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yogesh further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein the modular system incorporates cloud computing, real-time data processing, and predictive analytics for proactive policy making and service management. (Yogesh: See page 23, lines 1-26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include the Internet of Things (IoT) that is emerging as the next big wave of digital presence for billions of devices on the Internet. Smart Cities are practical manifestation of IoT, with the goal of efficient, reliable and safe delivery of city utilities, as taught by Yogesh, in order to provide better services. (See Yogesh, pages 1-2)
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yogesh in further view of Delk, US Patent Number 10366394 B2.
Regarding claim 5:
Liu and Yogesh do not explicitly disclose the following, however Delk further teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the hosted services platform is structured to enable third-party service providers to engage with and utilize the modular system tools and platform for delivering services related to transportation, healthcare, and similar tailored client-specific services. (Delk: See column 10, lines 1-17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include system for delivering various types of services including property management services, residential rental services, social services, low income housing services, as taught by Delk, in order to provide better services. (See Delk: column 1, lines 25-60)
Regarding claim 8:
Liu and Yogesh do not explicitly disclose the following, however Delk further teaches:
The system of claim 7, wherein the community envelope data includes income, transportation, healthcare, housing standards, environmental safety data, and related quality of life parameters. (Delk: See column 4, lines 1-24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include system for delivering various types of services including property management services, residential rental services, social services, low income housing services, as taught by Delk, in order to provide better services. (See Delk: column 1, lines 25-60)
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yogesh in view of Kuznar in further view of Delk.
Regarding claim 14:
Liu, Yogesh, and Kuznar do not explicitly disclose the following, however Delk further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein collecting community data includes gathering from public and private information sources. (Delk: See column 21, lines 18-50)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include system for delivering various types of services including property management services, residential rental services, social services, low income housing services, as taught by Delk, in order to provide better services. (See Delk: column 1, lines 25-60)
Regarding claim 18:
Liu, Yogesh, and Kuznar do not explicitly disclose the following, however Delk further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein hosted service platforms facilitate cross- sector collaboration between various public and social services. (Delk: See column 12, lines 4-32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include system for delivering various types of services including property management services, residential rental services, social services, low income housing services, as taught by Delk, in order to provide better services. (See Delk: column 1, lines 25-60)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yogesh in view of Kuznar in further view of Funk et al. (hereinafter Funk), US Patent Number US 10637683 B2.
Regarding claim 16:
Liu, Yogesh, and Kuznar do not explicitly disclose the following, however Funk further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein Al and loT integration assists in traffic and public transport management. (Funk: See column 38, lines 1-46)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cloud platform management system that comprises a public security cloud service subsystem, a street cloud service subsystem, a property cloud service subsystem, a resident cloud service subsystem and a house renting cloud service subsystem, wherein the subsystems are connected through a network to form the cloud platform management system of Liu to include computing system or IoT management node might receive sensor data from one or more IoT-capable sensors, analyze the sensor data to determine one or more actions to be taken, as taught by Funk, in order to provide better suggestions or actions. (See Funk: column 3, lines 30-67)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached 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 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
July 25, 2025
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights