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 application filed on 4/10/2024.
Claims 1-20 were previously presented.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium and thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…receiving data from a plurality of data sources, the plurality of data sources including: smart home devices, a weather database, an insurance company, 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 based upon the received data from the plurality of data sources, that an event will occur and initiating an action based upon the prediction that the event will occur”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. predicting and determining an event will damage an insured asset) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the method claimed of one or more processors that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving … data from a plurality of data sources; predicting … that an event will occur; and initiating… an action based upon the prediction”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the one or more processors that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving … data from a plurality of data sources; predicting … that an event will occur; and initiating… an action based upon the prediction”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 11 and 16 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 1. Thus, the claims are rejected based on the same reasoning as above in claim 1. Thus, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are dependent on claims 1, 11 and 16. Therefore, claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 11 and 16. Claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the smart phone and/or the smart home device, the processor and the weather database included in the dependent claims 2, 5-10, 12, 15, 17 and 20 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “presenting… a warning of the predicted event, and wherein the warning comprises a visual, audio, and/or haptic warning” (claims 2, 12 and 17); “determining …that a hailstorm is approaching the automobile; and determining …that the hailstorm will damage the automobile” (claims 5, 15 and 20); “presenting… an indication to move the automobile to prevent damage to the automobile” (claim 6); “…identifying … an insurance claim (i) placed by a second insurance customer, and (ii) associated with a weather event; and determining …an association between the weather event and the first insurance customer” (claim 7); “analyzing …insurance claims of other insurance customers to predict that the wildfire will affect the first insurance customer” (claim 8); “training…an event prediction machine learning algorithm by inputting …historical information into the event prediction machine learning algorithm…and predicting …the event by routing …the received data from the plurality of data sources into the event protection machine learning algorithm” (claim 9); and “training… a prevention action machine learning algorithm by inputting… historical information into the prevention action machine learning algorithm…; and …determining…the action by routing… the received data from the plurality of data sources into the prevention action machine learning algorithm (claim 10), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the smart phone and/or the smart home device, the processor and the weather database included in the dependent claims 2, 5-10, 12, 15, 17 and 20 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “presenting… a warning of the predicted event, and wherein the warning comprises a visual, audio, and/or haptic warning” (claims 2, 12 and 17); “determining …that a hailstorm is approaching the automobile; and determining …that the hailstorm will damage the automobile” (claims 5, 15 and 20); “presenting… an indication to move the automobile to prevent damage to the automobile” (claim 6); “…identifying … an insurance claim (i) placed by a second insurance customer, and (ii) associated with a weather event; and determining …an association between the weather event and the first insurance customer” (claim 7); “analyzing …insurance claims of other insurance customers to predict that the wildfire will affect the first insurance customer” (claim 8); “training…an event prediction machine learning algorithm by inputting …historical information into the event prediction machine learning algorithm…and predicting …the event by routing …the received data from the plurality of data sources into the event protection machine learning algorithm” (claim 9); and “training… a prevention action machine learning algorithm by inputting… historical information into the prevention action machine learning algorithm…; and …determining…the action by routing… the received data from the plurality of data sources into the prevention action machine learning algorithm (claim 10), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are not patent eligible.
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, 4, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (2022/0318923) and further in view of Hayward et al. (10,497,250).
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);
predicting, via the one or more processors, based upon the received data from the plurality of data sources, that an event will occur that will damage an insured asset (via analyze/predict data related to damage of the insured item, see paragraph 111, element 909, Fig.9); and
initiating, via the one or more processors, an action based upon the prediction that the event will occur (via offers and transmits a suggestion or other information to help the potential customer/customer decide whether or not to submit an insurance claim for the damaged item, see paragraph 111, element 913, Fig.9).
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.
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).
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 an intelligent monitoring system controller 106 of Hayward so that the system of Banerjee would be provided with more plurality of data sources efficiently.
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 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 protection 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 protection 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.
Claims 2, 12 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (2022/0318923) and Hayward et al. (10,497,250), and further in view of Marotta et al. (11,756,129).
As per claims 2, 12 and 17, the combination of Banerjee and Hayward teaches the limitations wherein 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 and Hayward 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 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.
Claims 3, 6, 13 and 18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (2022/0318923) and Hayward et al. (10,497,250), and further in view of Anderson et al. (2019/0202463).
As per claims 3, 13 and 18, Banerjee does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the action comprises: shutting off a water valve, activating a sump pump, activating a sprinkler system, contacting an emergency responder and/or shutting off a smart appliance.
However, Hayward teaches this limitation wherein the action comprises: shutting off a water valve, activating a sump pump, 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); contacting an emergency responder (via requiring an appropriate responder or authority (e.g., law enforcement for a security alert, fire department for a fire alert, paramedics for a medical alert, plumber for a leak alert, power company for a power outage alert, etc.), the remote system monitor 142 may attempt to contact one of the authorized end-users (e.g., with a telephone call, text message, email, app alert, etc.) to verify the event potentially requiring an appropriate responder and/or notify the appropriate responder, see column 18, lines 1-18); 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 the method and the system wherein the action comprises: shutting off a water valve, activating a sump pump, activating a sprinkler system, contacting an emergency responder and/or shutting off a 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.
The combination of Banerjee and Hayward does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein the action comprise moving an autonomous vehicle into a garage.
However Anderson teach the limitations wherein the action comprise moving an autonomous vehicle into a 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 6, The combination of Banerjee and Hayward teaches the limitations wherein 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 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.
Claims 5, 15 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee et al. (2022/0318923) and Hayward et al. (10,497,250), and further in view of Smith (2002/0067289).
As per claims 5, 15 and 20, the combination of Banerjee and Hayward 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 and Smith in order to provide a current weather grid of Smith so that the events in Banerjee and Hayward 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) and Hayward et al. (10,497,250), and further in view of Tye (10,572,943).
As per claim 7, the combination of Banerjee and Hayward 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 and Hayward 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 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 8, the combination of Banerjee and Hayward 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 and Hayward 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 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.
Conclusion
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