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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has altered the rejection made under § 101 and added a more in-depth analysis that is believed to address Applicant’s arguments.
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, 3-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-21, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system. Claim 12 recites a method. Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage media.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 12, taken as representative, recites the abstract idea of recommending home devices. This idea is described by the following steps:
A method comprising:
receiving historical home data collected from a plurality of homes, the historical home data including (i) combinations of connected devices installed in the plurality of homes, and (ii) feedback data indicating a performance level of each of the combinations of connected devices within the associated home, the performance level including a value indicating a technical compatibility of the combinations and safety features provided by the combinations;
receiving home data indicating one or more connected devices that are present in a home;
generating a connected home device recommendation based upon the received home data, the connected home device recommendation including at least one recommended connected home device, wherein at least one recommended connected home device is compatible with the one or more connected home devices that are present in the home to improve the performance level of the connected home device within the home; and
communicating recommendation data to a user.
Claims 1 and 20 recite equivalent limitations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite vehicle recommendation, i.e., commercial interactions.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite a processor; a memory and one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraphs 129) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Claims 1, 12 and 20 additionally recite training a generative AI model. However, the machine-learned models are recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to perform the process (i.e., using historical home data to generate) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 1, 12 and 20 additionally recite causing the user device to generate a user interface (i.e., recommending home devices compatible with other devices) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). However, these limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering (i.e. receiving home data and feedback data) and data output (i.e. displaying recommendations) (see2106.05(g)). Note how the abstract idea above includes the offer and menu communicating aspects of the claimed modifying steps.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 12 and 20 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 12 and 20 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 12 and 20 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 12 and 20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
With respect to the limitations determined to be insignificant extra solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). For example, at least paragraph 31 describes a network system that facilitates a request for services received from a user including a selection of a merchant.
Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights