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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the amendments filed on 04/28/2026.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11-13 and 16-18 are currently amended.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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 AIA 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 of this title, 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, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (2022/0318923), Hayward et al. (10,497,250), Anderson et al. (2019/0202463) and further in view of Alsubai et al. (2022/0300840).
As per claims 1, 11 and 16, Banerjee teaches a method, a system and a computer device for an ecosystem to predict and/or prevent loss, the method, the system and the computer device comprising:
receiving, via one or more processors, data from a plurality of data sources (via receive data related to damage of an insured item, see paragraph 109, element 901, Fig.9), the plurality of data sources including an insurance company (via receive data through an agent associated with an entity managing server 101, see paragraphs 56, 106 and 109);
Banerjee does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the plurality of data sources including smart home devices, a weather database, a real estate & property data company, artificial intelligence (AI) company, an electrical data company, a security company, and/or a property risk data company; predicting, via the one or more processors, prior to occurrence of an event, based upon the received data from the plurality of data sources, that the event will occur that will damage an insured asset; and initiating, via the one or more processors, an action based upon the prediction that the event will occur by: shut off a water valve, activate a sump pump, activate a sprinkler system, and/or shut off a smart appliance.
However, Hayward teaches these limitations wherein the plurality of data sources including smart home devices (via each appliance 114 may be a “smart” appliance, see columns 14, lines 24-44 and Fig.1), a weather database (via a report/database on a travel path and strength of a hurricane provided by the National Weather Service, column 24, lines 13-23), a real estate & property data company (via static characteristic data associated with the building 130 may include data that is descriptive or indicative of one or more static characteristics of the building 130 such as, for example, a type of the building, a material or product used to construct the building (e.g., roofing, insulation, concrete, vapor barriers, etc.), the grading of the parcel of land on which the building is located, and other static characteristics, see column 24, lines 45-60), artificial intelligence (AI) company (via the artificial intelligence system 404 (see Fig. 4), an electrical data company, a security company, (via the remote system monitor 142 may also receive this information indirectly...e.g., law enforcement for a security alert...power company for a power outage alert, etc., see column 18, lines 1-18), and/or a property risk data company (via a third-party may be an insurance provider, see column 24, lines 3-12. The pricing and/or other financial terms of the insurance policy may be adjusted to more accurately reflect the risk associated with the building 130, and in particular, in light of the impacting event as described by the third-party input, see column 25, lines 48-56).
predicting, via the one or more processors, prior to occurrence of an event, based upon the received data from the plurality of data sources, that the event will occur that will damage an insured asset (via at a block 310, the method 300 may include training a model, for example, a statistical or analytical model, which may be a publicly-available or proprietary model. The model may be predictive of one or more conditions that may be associated with the building 130, see column 24, lines 24-30, column 25, lines 14-23, and steps 310, 312 in Fig.3); and
initiating, via the one or more processors, an action based upon the prediction that the event will occur by: shut off a water valve, activate a sump pump, activate a sprinkler system, and/or shut off a smart appliance (via the control device 110 may be an automated water valve that can be adjusted according to inputs from the intelligent monitoring system controller 106 to adjust the flow of water in and around the building 130 (e.g., turning on or turning off sprinklers, turning on a pump to prevent the basement from flooding, etc.), see column 13, lines 43-52 and column 14, lines 7-14); and/or shutting off a smart appliance (via the control device 110 may be an automated gas valve that can be adjusted according to input from the intelligent monitoring system controller 106 to adjust the flow of gas in and around the building 130. Such an automated gas valve may, for example, allow for automatic and/or remote shutting off of gas during a fire or earthquake, etc., see column 13, lines 53-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate all the limitations above as taught by Hayward in Banerjee since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination of Banerjee and Hayward does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein moving an autonomous vehicle.
However, Anderson teach the limitations wherein moving an autonomous vehicle (via the autonomous vehicle 110 is covered, sheltered, enclosed, or otherwise protected by a shelter 275 (e.g. garage, car port, parking garage), see paragraph 39. The protection action module 134 has instructed the autonomous vehicle 110 to drive to a shelter 275 from the curbside 230 location near the road 230 to avoid damage from impending weather conditions, see paragraph 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and the system wherein the action comprise moving an autonomous vehicle as taught by Anderson in the combination of Banerjee and Hayward since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination of Banerjee, Hayward and Anderson does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein sending a control signal to a physical device.
Alsubai teaches this limitation wherein sending a control signal to a physical device (via the electronic alert signal is transmitted to an on-site water shut-down valve (e.g., to automatically turn of water to a building or a particular floor of a building), see paragraph 39 and claim 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson and Alsubai in order to provide the electronic alert signal so that the action in Banerjee, Hayward and Anderson would be initiated more efficiently and accurately.
As per claim 3, Banerjee does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the action comprises: shutting off the water valve, or activating the sump pump.
However, Hayward teaches this limitation wherein the action comprises: shutting off the water valve, or activating the sump pump (via the control device 110 may be an automated water valve that can be adjusted according to inputs from the intelligent monitoring system controller 106 to adjust the flow of water in and around the building 130 (e.g., turning on or turning off sprinklers, turning on a pump to prevent the basement from flooding, etc.), see column 13, lines 43-52 and column 14, lines 7-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and the system wherein the action comprises: shutting off the water valve, or activating the sump pump as taught by Hayward in Banerjee since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claims 4, 14 and 19, Banerjee does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the event comprises: a weather event comprising: a hailstorm, a flood, a rainstorm, an earthquake, a tornado, and/or a hurricane; an electrical fire; and/or a wildfire.
However, Hayward teaches these limitations wherein the event comprises: a weather event comprising: a hailstorm, a flood, a rainstorm, an earthquake, a tornado, and/or a hurricane; an electrical fire; and/or a wildfire (see column 52, lines 2-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Banerjee and Hayward in order to provide a processor to determine a peril associated with the damaged insured asset of Hayward so that the events in Banerjee would be predicted more accurately.
As per claim 6, The combination of Banerjee and Hayward teaches the limitations wherein the action further comprises presenting, via a smart phone and/or smart home device, an indication (via transmitting an indication of the discovered condition(s), e.g., the discovered particular damage of the building 130, to the remote computing device and/or to a user interface, see in Hayward, column 25, lines 57-66, element 315, Fig.3).
The combination of Banerjee and Hayward does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the action further comprises presenting, via a smart phone and/or smart home device, an indication to move the automobile to prevent damage to the automobile.
However Anderson teach the limitations he action comprises presenting an indication to move the automobile to prevent damage to the automobile (via the autonomous vehicle 110 is covered, sheltered, enclosed, or otherwise protected by a shelter 275 (e.g. garage, car port, parking garage), see paragraph 39. The protection action module 134 has instructed the autonomous vehicle 110 to drive to a shelter 275 from the curbside 230 location near the road 230 to avoid damage from impending weather conditions, see paragraph 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and the system wherein presenting an indication to move the automobile to prevent damage to the automobile as taught by Anderson in the combination of Banerjee and Hayward since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, Banerjee does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein training, via the one or more processors, an event prediction machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the event prediction machine learning algorithm, the historical information comprising: (i) independent variables comprising (a) historical weather data, (b) historical insurance claims data, and/or (c) historical smart device data, and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical events; and predicting, via the one or more processors, the event by routing the received data from the plurality of data sources into the event prediction machine learning algorithm.
However, Hayward teaches these limitations wherein training, via the one or more processors, an event prediction machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the event prediction machine learning algorithm, the historical information comprising: (i) independent variables comprising (a) historical weather data, (b) historical insurance claims data, and/or (c) historical smart device data, and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical events; and predicting, via the one or more processors, the event by routing the received data from the plurality of data sources into the event prediction machine learning algorithm (see Fig.11-Fig.14 and related texts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Banerjee and Hayward in order to provide a machine learning algorithm of Hayward so that the events in Banerjee would be predicted more accurately.
As per claim 10, Banerjee does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein training, via the one or more processors, a prevention action machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the prevention action machine learning algorithm, the historical information comprising: (i) independent variables comprising (a) historical predicted events, (b) historical weather data, and/or (c) historical smart device data, and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical prevention actions; and wherein initiating the action includes determining, via the one or more processors, the action by routing the received data from the plurality of data sources into the prevention action machine learning algorithm.
However, Hayward teaches these limitations wherein training, via the one or more processors, a prevention action machine learning algorithm by inputting historical information into the prevention action machine learning algorithm, the historical information comprising: (i) independent variables comprising (a) historical predicted events, (b) historical weather data, and/or (c) historical smart device data, and/or (ii) dependent variables comprising historical prevention actions; and wherein initiating the action includes determining, via the one or more processors, the action by routing the received data from the plurality of data sources into the prevention action machine learning algorithm (see Fig.11-Fig.14 and related texts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Banerjee and Hayward in order to provide a machine learning algorithm of Hayward so that the events in Banerjee would be predicted more accurately.
As per claim 13, Banerjee does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the action comprises: activating a sprinkler system; or moving the autonomous vehicle into the garage.
However, Hayward teaches this limitation wherein the action comprises: activating a sprinkler system (via the control device 110 may be an automated water valve that can be adjusted according to inputs from the intelligent monitoring system controller 106 to adjust the flow of water in and around the building 130 (e.g., turning on or turning off sprinklers, turning on a pump to prevent the basement from flooding, etc.), see column 13, lines 43-52 and column 14, lines 7-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and the system wherein the action comprises: activating a sprinkler system as taught by Hayward in Banerjee since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination of Banerjee and Hayward does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the action comprises moving the autonomous vehicle into the garage.
However Anderson teach the limitations wherein the action comprise moving the autonomous vehicle into the garage (via the autonomous vehicle 110 is covered, sheltered, enclosed, or otherwise protected by a shelter 275 (e.g. garage, car port, parking garage), see paragraph 39. The protection action module 134 has instructed the autonomous vehicle 110 to drive to a shelter 275 from the curbside 230 location near the road 230 to avoid damage from impending weather conditions, see paragraph 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and the system wherein the action comprise moving an autonomous vehicle into a garage as taught by Anderson in the combination of Banerjee and Hayward since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 18, Banerjee does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the action comprises: shutting off the smart appliance.
However, Hayward teaches this limitation wherein the action comprises: shutting off the smart appliance (via the control device 110 may be an automated gas valve that can be adjusted according to input from the intelligent monitoring system controller 106 to adjust the flow of gas in and around the building 130. Such an automated gas valve may, for example, allow for automatic and/or remote shutting off of gas during a fire or earthquake, etc., see column 13, lines 53-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and the system wherein the action comprises: shutting off the smart appliance as taught by Hayward in Banerjee since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 2, 12 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (2022/0318923), Hayward et al. (10,497,250), Anderson et al. (2019/0202463) and Alsubai et al. (2022/0300840), and further in view of Marotta et al. (11,756,129).
As per claims 2, 12 and 17, the combination of Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson and Alsubai teaches the limitations wherein the action further comprises presenting, via a smart phone and/or smart home device, a warning a warning of the predicted event (via transmitting an indication of the discovered condition(s), e.g., the discovered particular damage of the building 130, to the remote computing device and/or to a user interface, see in Hayward, column 25, lines 57-66, element 315, Fig.3).
The combination of Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson and Alsubai does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein a warning of the predicted event, and wherein the warning comprises a visual, audio, and/or haptic warning.
However, Marotta teaches this limitation wherein the warning comprises a visual, audio, and/or haptic warning (via the warning or notification may be audio, visual, or haptic (e.g., the individual's smartphone vibrating), see column 12, lines 45-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and the system wherein the warning comprises a visual, audio, and/or haptic warning as taught by Marotta in the combination of Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson and Alsubai since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 5, 15 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (2022/0318923), Hayward et al. (10,497,250), Anderson et al. (2019/0202463) and Alsubai et al. (2022/0300840), and further in view of Smith (2002/0067289).
As per claims 5, 15 and 20, the combination of Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson and Alsubai does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the insured asset is an automobile, and wherein the predicting that the event will occur comprises: determining, via the one or more processors, based upon weather data from the weather database, that a hailstorm is approaching the automobile; and determining, via the one or more processors, that the hailstorm will damage the automobile.
However, Smith teaches these limitations wherein the insured asset is an automobile, and wherein the predicting that the event will occur comprises: determining, via the one or more processors, based upon weather data from the weather database, that a hailstorm is approaching the automobile; and determining, via the one or more processors, that the hailstorm will damage the automobile (see paragraphs 8-9, 33-36 and 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson, Alsubai and Smith in order to provide a current weather grid of Smith so that the events in Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson and Alsubai would be predicted more accurately.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (2022/0318923), Hayward et al. (10,497,250), Anderson et al. (2019/0202463) and Alsubai et al. (2022/0300840), and further in view of Tye (10,572,943).
As per claim 7, the combination of Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson and Alsubai teaches the limitations wherein the insured asset is of a first insurance customer (see in Banerjee, element 903, Fig.3); the plurality of data sources includes the insurance company (via receive data through an agent associated with an entity managing server 101, see in Banerjee paragraphs 56, 106 and 109) and the weather database (via a report/database on a travel path and strength of a hurricane provided by the National Weather Service, see in Hayward column 24, lines 13-23); and the predicting that the event will occur that will damage the insured asset comprises identifying, via the one or more processors, an insurance claim and (ii) associated with a weather event and determining, via the one or more processors, an association between the weather event and the first insurance customer (see in Hayward column 29, lines 30-60 and column 46, lines 23-46).
The combination of Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson and Alsubai does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein and insurance claim place by a second insurance customer.
Tye teaches this limitation wherein insurance claim place by a second insurance customer (via the second record being received from a second mobile device associated with a second insurance customer, see claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and the system wherein insurance claim place by a second insurance customer as taught by Tye in the combination of Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson and Alsubai since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, the combination of Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson and Alsubai teaches the limitations wherein the insured asset is of a first insurance customer; the plurality of data sources includes the insurance company; the event comprises a wildfire; and the predicting that the event will occur that will damage the insured asset comprises analyzing, via the one or more processors, insurance claims of other insurance customers to predict that the wildfire will affect the first insurance customer (see in Banerjee, element 903, Fig.3, paragraphs 56, 106 and 109, see in Hayward column 24, lines 13-23, column 29, lines 30-60 and column 46, lines 23-46).
The combination of Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson and Alsubai does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein insurance claims of other insurance customers.
Tye teaches this limitation wherein insurance claims of other insurance customers (via the second record being received from a second mobile device associated with a second/other insurance customer, see claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and the system wherein insurance claims of other insurance customers as taught by Tye in the combination of Banerjee, Hayward, Anderson and Alsubai since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The previous claims 1-20 rejection under the 35 USC 101 in view of Alice have been withdrawn in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 103
The updated cited of prior art rejections of claims 1-20 have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new and updated cited of prior art rejection presented in this Office action. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights