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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
The 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn based on the applicant’s arguments.
The 35 USC 101 rejection remain rejected as the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues claim 1 as amended integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the claim recites a particular technological implementation involving: (1) receiving, at a request server, home telematics data for the home from at least one of a mobile device, or a smart device associated with the home; and (2) determining, via a score calculator of the request server, based upon the home telematics data, a plurality of home subscores using machine learning algorithms.
In response, the claims as now amended still fail to recite technological
implementation details of how the claimed functions are being realized. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101." Beteiro, LLC V. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The specification does not even provide details of a specific architecture or means or structures or specific computer executed modules for performing the claimed functions. Taken claim 1 as an example,
Claim 1 now recites an improvement to the business of:
receiving, at a request server, home telematics data for a home from at least one of a mobile device, or a smart device associated with the home;
determining, via a score calculator of the request server, based upon the home telematics data, a plurality of home subscores comprising: a home safety subscore determined via a home safety subscore machine learning algorithm, a fire protection subscore determined via a fire protection subscore machine learning algorithm, a sustainability subscore determined via a sustainability subscore machine learning algorithm, and/or a home automation subscore determined via a home automation subscore machine learning algorithm; displaying, via one or more processors, in a first portion of a display, identifying information of the home; and
displaying, via one or more processors, in a second portion of the display:
an overall home score determined based upon the plurality of home subscores;
the plurality of home subscores;
a link to at least one recommendation for how to improve a subscore of the plurality of subscores along with an indication of which subscore would be improved; and
a relative home score comprising a comparison between the overall home score and scores of other homes.
The claims "do[es] not improve the functioning of the server, score calculator or machine algorithm or processor to make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. V. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019). "Nothing in the claim[s], understood in light of the specification, calls for anything but preexisting computers and displays, programmed using techniques known to skilled artisans, to present the new arrangement of information." Brumfield V. IBG LLC, 97 F Ath 854, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The claims also do not show a technical improvement in the architecture of a processor using a computing logic of the computing system or the mobile device. The recited functions involve generic or conventional functions and setup of a basic computer system.
The mere recitation of a generic processor or server or calculator or machine learning algorithm
performing their expected functions cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention as stated in Alice Corp., 134S.Ct. at 2358; DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cri. 2014) ("And after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. (citation omitted)). Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implement' an abstract idea 'on a computer', that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (internal citation omitted). The claimed computing processor, server or calculator and machine learning algorithm are merely a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Each of the independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic processor or device or calculator) for receiving data or information, and determining of a score, as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
The claims are void of anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant’s representative then states “[T]the claimed system is not merely applying generic computer components to perform an abstract idea; rather, it implements a specific technical solution involving the coordinated operation of smart devices, a request server, and a score calculator to collect, process, and present home-related data in a manner that enables actionable improvements”. Applicant then argues “that this ordered combination of elements provides significantly more than any alleged abstract idea”.
In response, the reliance of a server, computer or processor or calculator or machine algorithm to perform its routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As indicated by the court "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive incept. The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
As noted in the applicant’s specification, there is not a specific structure or computer components to perform the claimed functions. The generic computing system, server and calculator can be any known server or computer processor or software or hardware components. However, there is not a specific or new algorithm noted in the applicant’s specification to generate the claimed functions.
The claimed computing system, server or processor or calculator or machine algorithm noted in the applicant's specification are routine computer processors or computers performing generic computer functions.
Furthermore., there is not a showing or description of the claimed retrieving, receiving or determining of data or information, and providing the data for displaying data to a processor to effect specific improvements to the processor or calculator.
Furthermore there is a lacking of evidence that the claims improve the manner in which the processor or calculator or machine algorithm, as the claims in Enfish had performed their claimed invention via a “self-referential table” for a computer database. Applicant is being referred to Enfish, 822, F.3d at 1327, 1337.
The instant claims merely receive data, determine and display data to a processor. These claimed functions are routine and generic computer functions for processing or effecting the abstract idea. Hence, there is not a significant improvement of the processors, derver or calculator or the architecture of the overall system.
The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, are merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 AND 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, 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.
Specifically, claims 17-19 are directed to a system. Claims 1-2, 4-16 and 20 are directed to a method. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The claims when the bolded limitations are removed recite the following limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for determining and/or displaying home scores, comprising:
receiving, at a request server, home telematics data for a home from at least one of a mobile device, or a smart device associated with the home;
determining, via a score calculator of the request server, based upon the home telematics data, a plurality of home subscores comprising: a home safety subscore determined via a home safety subscore machine learning algorithm, a fire protection subscore determined via a fire protection subscore machine learning algorithm, a sustainability subscore determined via a sustainability subscore machine learning algorithm, and/or a home automation subscore determined via a home automation subscore machine learning algorithm;displaying, via one or more processors, in a first portion of a display, identifying information of the home; and
displaying, via one or more processors, in a second portion of the display:
an overall home score determined based upon the plurality of home subscores;
the plurality of home subscores;
a link to at least one recommendation for how to improve a subscore of the plurality of subscores along with an indication of which subscore would be improved; and
a relative home score comprising a comparison between the overall home score and scores of other homes.
Claim 2 recites displaying, via the one or more processors, in response to receiving a selection of the link, at least one recommendation for how to improve the subscore of the plurality of subscores.
Claim 4 recites wherein the at least one recommendation comprises a recommendation to perform a particular repair using a particular vendor.
Claim 5 recites the plurality of home subscores comprises the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and the home automation subscore; and
the method further comprises:
displaying, via the one or more processors, a link corresponding to the home safety subscore, a link corresponding to the fire protection subscore, a link corresponding to the sustainability subscore, and a link corresponding to the home automation subscore;
in response to a user selecting the link corresponding to the home safety subscore, displaying, via the one or more processors, at least one recommendation to improve the home safety subscore;
in response to a user selecting the link corresponding to the fire protection subscore, displaying, via the one or more processors, at least one recommendation to improve the fire protection subscore;
in response to a user selecting the link corresponding to the sustainability subscore, displaying, via the one or more processors, at least one recommendation to improve the sustainability subscore; and
in response to a user selecting the link corresponding to the home automation subscore, displaying, via the one or more processors, at least one recommendation to improve the home automation subscore.
Claim 6 recites wherein the displayed relative home score is displayed as a percentage indicating the comparison between the overall home score and the scores of the other homes.
Claim 7 recites wherein the other homes comprise homes within:
a predetermined distance from the home; a same zip code as the home; a same county as the home; a same State as the home; or a same country as the home.
Claim 8 recites wherein the displayed relative home score is displayed as: (1) a numerical score, and (ii) a dial pointing to icons, wherein the icons are color coded to indicate relative differences between home scores.
Claim 9 recites displaying, via the one or more processors, at least one recommendation for how to improve a subscore of the plurality of subscores;
receiving, via the one or more processors, an indication that the at least one recommendation has been selected; and
in response to receiving that at least one indication that the at least one recommendation has been selected, updating, via the one or more processors the displayed: (i) numerical score, and (ii) dial pointing to icons.
Claim 10 recites wherein:
the home score is displayed in a center of the second portion of the display; and
the subscores are displayed in corner portions of the second portion of the display.
Claim 11 recites displaying, via the one or more processors, in a third portion of the display, a link to obtain a homeowners insurance quote.
Claim 12 recites wherein the displayed identifying information comprises an address of the home, and the method further comprises:
displaying, via the one or more processors, in the first portion of the display, home parameters comprising: a year built of the home, square footage of the home, a number of stories of the home, a number of bedrooms of the home, and/or a number of bathrooms of the home.
Claim 13 recites displaying a holistic screen displaying:
a holistic risk profile score; a self icon;
an auto icon;
and a residential icon; and wherein:
selecting the self icon causes: (i) on the display, the self icon to move away from the auto icon and the residential icon, and (ii) a self-risk score to be displayed;
selecting the auto icon causes: (i) on the display, the auto icon to move away from the self icon and the residential icon, and (11) an auto risk score to be displayed; and
selecting the residential icon causes: (1) on the display, the residential icon to move away from the self icon and the auto icon, and (ii) the overall home score to be displayed.
Claim 14 recites displaying a holistic screen displaying: a holistic risk profile score;
a self icon including a self risk score link; an auto icon including an auto risk score link; and a residential icon including a home risk score link; and
wherein displaying the identifying information of the home and displaying the overall home score, the relative home score and the plurality of home subscores occurs in response to a user selecting the home risk score link.
Claim 15 recites wherein: the plurality of home subscores comprises the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and the home automation subscore; and
the overall home score is determined based upon a weighted average of each of the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and the home automation subscore.
Claim 16 recites determining, via the one or more processors, the weighted average by setting weights of each of the home safety subscore, the fire protection subscore, the sustainability subscore, and the home automation subscore based upon geographic region of the home, time of year, and/or climate data.
Claim 17 recites:
(Currently Amended) A computer system for determining and/or displaying home scores, the computer system comprising one or more processors configured to:
receive, at a request server, home telematics data for a home from at least one of a mobile device, or a smart device associated with the home;
determine, via a score calculator of the request server, based upon the home telematics data, a plurality of home subscores comprising: a home safety subscore determined via a home safety subscore machine learning algorithm, a fire protection subscore determined via a fire protection subscore machine learning algorithm, a sustainability subscore determined via a sustainability subscore machine learning algorithm, and/or a home automation subscore determined via a home automation subscore machine learning algorithm;
display, in a first portion of a display, identifying information of [[a]] the home; and display, in a second portion of the display:
an overall home score determined based upon [[a]] the plurality of home subscores;
the plurality of home subscores;
a link to at least one recommendation for how to improve a subscore of the plurality of subscores along with an indication of which subscore would be improved; and
a relative home score comprising a comparison between the overall home score and scores of other homes.
Claim 18 recites wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
train a fire protection machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the fire protection machine learning algorithm, the historical information comprising: (i) independent variables comprising (a) historical geographic distances of homes to fire stations, and/or (b) historical estimated time distances from homes to fire stations, and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical fire protection subscores; and
determine the fire protection subscore by routing information of the home into the fire protection machine learning algorithm.
Claim 19 recites:
A computer system for determining and/or displaying home scores, the computer system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory memories;
the one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to:
receive, at a request server, home telematics data for a home from at least one of a mobile device, or a smart device associated with the home;
determine, via a score calculator of the request server, based upon the home telematics data, a plurality of home subscores comprising: a home safety subscore determined via a home safety subscore machine learning algorithm, a fire protection subscore determined via a fire protection subscore machine learning algorithm, a sustainability subscore determined via a sustainability subscore machine learning algorithm, and/or a home automation subscore determined via a home automation subscore machine learning algorithm;
display, in a first portion of a display, identifying information of the home; and display, in a second portion of the display:
an overall home score determined based upon the plurality of home subscores;
the plurality of home subscores;
a link to at least one recommendation for how to improve a subscore of the plurality of subscores along with an indication of which subscore would be improved; and
a relative home score comprising a comparison between the overall home score and scores of other homes.
Claim 20 recites: The computer system of claim 19, the one or more non-transitory memories having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to:
train a home automation machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the home automation machine learning algorithm, the historical information comprising: (i) independent variables comprising (a) historical numbers of smart devices of homes, and/or (b) historical types of smart devices in homes, and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical homes automation subscores; and
determine the home automation subscore by routing information of the home into the home automation machine learning algorithm.
The functions of “displaying” data as found in claims 1-2 , 4-19 and to “train” and “determine” data as found in claim 20 involve mental processes and/or generic computer functions.
Furthermore, the functions of “displaying” data also involve an insignificant post solution activity.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as performing mental processes as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
because it amounts to the functions of:
“displaying, in a second portion of the display:
an overall home score determined based upon a plurality of home subscores;
the plurality of home subscores comprising: a home safety subscore determined via a home safety subscore algorithm, a fire protection subscore determined via a fire protection subscore algorithm, a sustainability subscore determined via a sustainability subscore algorithm, and/or a home automation subscore determined via a home automation subscore algorithm; and
a relative home score comprising a comparison between the overall home score and scores of other homes”
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations,
The claimed “computing system” of a “server”, “processor” and a “display” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps by a generic machine, or server or processor or device merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Determining or training data are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors or computing device which display data and then train and display data.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of displaying data on a display.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a “processor” with “memory”, a “server”, a “machine algorithm” and a display does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed processors or server are noted to a be a generic computer for displaying data and for performing routine computer functions therein. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processor”, “memory”, “server” and “machine algorithm” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the 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.
Accordingly, claims 1, 17 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole 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.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
January 27, 2026